1 CGHC010183952026 2026:CGHC:28672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 725 of 2026 Shubham Chandravanshi S/o Shri N.P. Chandravanshi Aged About 32 Years R/o Hanuman Gadi Chowk, Rajkishore Nagar P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant Along with MCRCA No. 705 of 2026 Suraj Kumar Vastrakar S/o Shri Sanichram Vastrakar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Gatora, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Mr. Anil Tripathi and Umakant Singh Chandel, Advocates. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 502/2026 registered at Police Station – Civil Line, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 61, 228, 229, 233, 246, 318, 335, 336, 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. The case of the prosecution, is that on 16.04.2026, the complainant on behalf of 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, had filed a written complaint at Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur, that in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 2533/2025 Premika Kujur and Ors. Vs. Murli Yadav and Ors. which is pending in the said tribunal, a claim application under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act along with false affidavit was submitted on behalf of Premika Kujur and Ors. through their advocates N. P. Chandravanshi, Smt. Bhagwati Kashyap, Shubham Chandravanshi and Suraj Kumar on 24.09.2025 in which Premika Kujur was stated to be the wife of deceased namely Prabhat Kujur, whereas Premika Kujur while appearing in the court stated that she is the wife of Jony Kujur and the deceased namely Prabhat Kujur is her brother-in-law and has neither executed any affidavit nor any claim in the court, and also nor appointed any advocate on the basis of the said incident, the crime was registered against the applicants. Hence, this application. 3. Hence, this application. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants happen to be young lawyers, working as Junior Advocates under the guidance and instructions of their Senior Advocate as well as the father of the applicant Shubham Chandravanshi, namely Shri N.P. Chandravanshi, who is the main accused persons in the crime in question and who is stated to have produced the false and altered documents before the trial Court, and the applicants being the young practicing Advocates had acted only only in the course of professional duties without having any knowledge regarding the alleged crime. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation leveled against the applicants, and the fact that the applicants happen to be young lawyers, working as Junior Advocates under the guidance and instructions of their Senior Advocate as well as the father of the applicant Shubham Chandravanshi, namely Shri N.P. Chandravanshi, who is the main accused persons in the crime in question and who is stated to have produced the false and altered documents before the trial Court, and the applicants being the young practicing Advocates had acted only only in the course of professional duties without having any knowledge regarding the alleged crime, and the applicants has already been granted ad-interim bail vide order dated 12.05.2026 and the same is absolute, and the case of the applicants is distinguishable from that of the main accused Shri N.P. Chandravanshi, at this stage without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 7. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Shubham Chandravanshi and Suraj Kumar Vastrakar, on executing a personal bond with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, 4 they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant shall not involve themself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar