1 CGHC010219272026 2026:CGHC:29061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 866 of 2026 Vicky Ahirwar S/o- Rohit Ahirwar, Aged About 23 Years R/o- Chingrajpara Lingiyadih, Police Station Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 10/07/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.570/2026, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, 2 District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3), 109, 191(2), 191(3) of the BNS and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the n the night of 25.04.2026, the complainant, Sanat Sarathi, lodged an FIR alleging that while he was taking a walk after dinner, the applicant, Vicky Ahirwar, along with his associates, abused him in filthy language over an old enmity, threatened to kill him, and assaulted him with fists, sticks, and other weapons, causing injuries to his head, right hand, and left leg. When his wife Rekha Sarathi and other persons, namely Betu Vishwakarma, Soni Singh Thakur, and Tilak Das Manikpuri, intervened to rescue him, they were also allegedly assaulted and sustained injuries. On the basis of the said report, an FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation, the statements of the injured witnesses were recorded, who alleged that the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly, were armed with deadly weapons, and attempted to commit murder. Accordingly, offences under Sections 109, 191(2), and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, were added. The prosecution further alleges that the applicant absconded after the incident, did not cooperate with the investigation, and is the principal accused in the offence. Hence, the bail application. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. She further submits that the learned Court below failed to properly appreciate the material placed on record. The appellant's hospitalization records, discharge summary, photographs, and CCTV footage prima facie indicate that he had undergone hand surgery and was under medical treatment during the relevant period, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution allegation regarding his participation in the alleged assault. She also submits that immediately upon learning that the appellant had been implicated, his mother informed the concerned police authorities in writing about his hospitalization and requested that he not be falsely implicated. Further, no weapon or other incriminating article has been recovered from the appellant, nor is there any specific material connecting him with the alleged use of arms or necessitating his custodial interrogation. She lastly submits that the impugned order erroneously describes the appellant as the main accused without assigning any specific overt act, weapon, or injury to him. The medical documents produced by the appellant have not been shown to be forged or fabricated, yet they were discarded without cogent reasons. In the circumstances, the appellant deserves the protection of anticipatory bail. Hence she prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant allegedly in collusion with other co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly, abused the complainant in filthy language over a previous enmity, assaulted him and the intervening witnesses with fists, sticks, and deadly weapons, causing injuries, and attempted to commit murder. It is further alleged that the applicant is the principal accused in the incident and absconded after the occurrence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation made against the present applicant is that he is the principal accused in the incident and is alleged to have, in furtherance of the common intention of the unlawful assembly, assaulted the complainant and other injured persons with deadly weapons, causing multiple injuries and attempting to commit a serious offence, coupled with the material available in the case diary, including the statements of the injured witnesses prima facie implicating the applicant, this Court is of the considered view that a prima facie case is made out against him. The plea of alibi sought to be established by relying upon the hospitalization records does not, at this stage, conclusively rule out the applicant's presence at the place of occurrence, particularly when the discharge summary indicates 5 that he had already been discharged prior to the alleged incident. The investigation is still in progress, the applicant is stated to have absconded after the occurrence and has not cooperated with the investigating agency, and the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that, if released on anticipatory bail, he may influence or intimidate the witnesses, therefore considering the seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of the offences alleged, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Vicky Ahirwar, involved in Crime No.570/2026, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3), 109, 191(2), 191(3) of the BNS and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil