1 CGHC010265152026 2026:CGHC:30465 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1124 of 2026 Pawan Kumar Chouhan S/o Keshaw Prasad Chouhan Aged About 30 Years (Caste Chik) R/o Village Khutgaon, P.S. Farsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Farsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 17.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of second anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 74/2019 registered at Police Station Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 451, 109, 354 and 354(d) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRCA No. 1831/2019 vide order dated 05.02.2020. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a written report before the concerned police station alleging that on 02.10.2019, co-accused Pirathu Ram entered her house and attempted to outrage her modesty by offering her an amount of Rs. 500/-. It is further alleged that the applicant acted in furtherance of the offence along with the co-accused persons. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered a crime against the applicant and other accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 451, 109, 354 and 354(d) of the Indian Penal Code and commenced investigation. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous disputes between the parties. It is contended that the applicant has not committed any of the alleged offences and that the prosecution story is a result of personal animosity. He further submits that prior to the registration of the present FIR, the applicant had approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes regarding the false allegations levelled against him, pursuant to which the matter was examined by the Inspector General of Police, Sarguja Range. It is submitted that during the said proceedings, the dispute between the parties was amicably resolved and a recommendation was made for deletion of the applicant’s name from the FIR and for submission of a closure report, due to which the applicant did not find it necessary to seek anticipatory bail earlier. It is also argued that an FIR bearing Crime 3 No. 73/2019 had been registered at the instance of the applicant’s side against the family members of the complainant, in which the applicant was a witness, and thereafter, by way of retaliation, the complainant lodged the present FIR bearing Crime No. 74/2019 against him. He further submits that the investigation has not been conducted fairly and that the applicant has been implicated without proper inquiry. It is also pointed out that out of the three accused persons named in the case, the remaining co-accused have already been granted regular bail by the competent Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity as well, the applicant is entitled to similar protection. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant has been specifically named in the FIR and serious allegations have been levelled against him regarding his active involvement in the commission of the offences in question. It is contended that the investigation conducted by the police has disclosed sufficient material connecting the applicant with the alleged incident and, therefore, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Learned State counsel further submits that the applicant had earlier preferred an anticipatory bail application in respect of the same crime, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the year 2020, and despite the lapse of nearly six years thereafter, the applicant has again approached this Court by filing the present second anticipatory bail application without there 4 being any substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the relief. It is also submitted that the grounds raised by the applicant pertain to disputed questions of fact which can be examined only during trial and not at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, considering the nature of allegations, the specific role attributed to the applicant and the conduct of the applicant in approaching this Court after a considerable delay, the present second anticipatory bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the specific role attributed to him in the FIR, the material collected during investigation, and the fact that the applicant has been specifically named as an accused in the commission of the alleged offences. It is pertinent to note that the applicant had earlier approached the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by filing an anticipatory bail application in respect of the same crime, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2020. Thereafter, despite the lapse of about six years, the applicant has again approached this Court by way of the present second anticipatory bail application without demonstrating any substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the matter. The prolonged period during which the applicant did not avail the appropriate remedy and remained beyond the reach of the process of law also weighs against him. At this stage, the contentions raised 5 by the applicant regarding false implication, previous enmity and alleged deficiencies in the investigation involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 438 of the Code. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the specific naming of the applicant in the FIR, the earlier withdrawal of his anticipatory bail application, and the absence of any fresh circumstance justifying the grant of such relief after a considerable lapse of time, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 8. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Pawan Kumar Chouhan, involved in Crime No. 74/2019 registered at Police Station Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 451, 109, 354 and 354(d) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Rahul Dewangan