1 CGHC010271402026 2026:CGHC:30463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1121 of 2026 Manish R Masih S/o Rajendra Masih Aged About 38 Years R/o Diocese Chhattisgarh Church Of North India, In Front Of Raj Bhawan Gare. Civil Line Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A. For Objector : Mr. April Lall, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 17.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.0542/2026 registered at Police Station – Kota District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 7(2) of the Protection of Civil rights VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.20 10:58:01 +0530 2 Act, 1955 and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act. and Sections 196(1)(b), 196(2), 351(2), 352, 353(2), 353(3) & 356(2) of the BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, the present applicant, along with the other members of the Executive Body of the church, allegedly passed a resolution placing the complainant, who was serving as the Pastorate/Permanent Resident of the church, and his family under "Not in Good Standing." It is alleged that, as a consequence of the said resolution, the complainant and his family were ostracized from the church community, resulting in social exclusion, humiliation, and irreparable damage to their reputation and dignity. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered the FIR against the applicant and the other accused persons for the offences alleged therein and commenced the investigation. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the learned trial Court has erroneously rejected the bail application without proper appreciation of the facts and material on record. It is further submitted that the applicant has been serving as a pastor with unblemished reputation for over a decade and was transferred to the Kota Church in 2024 on account of his exemplary service. After joining, he found ongoing dispute between the Executive Body of the church and the Pastorate Committee/Permanent Residents, including the complainant, and made sincere efforts to resolve discord by even recommending the complainant's name for promotion before the Bishop. It is argued that the complainant, instead of availing the grievance redressal mechanism provided under the CNI 3 Act, 2017, initiated civil and writ proceedings and thereafter lodged the present FIR with a mala fide intention to pressurize the church authorities. Learned counsel submits that the Executive Body independently passed the resolution placing the complainant under "Not in Good Standing" on account of alleged financial irregularities and violation of church by-laws, and that the applicant neither proposed nor signed the said resolution. It is further contended that the Executive Body itself had no jurisdiction to pass such a resolution and, therefore, the allegations of social boycott against the applicant are wholly misconceived. It is also submitted that there is no cogent material connecting the applicant with the alleged offences and that his implication is based solely on suspicion and conjecture. The applicant is a permanent resident, has deep roots in society, is not likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence, and is willing to abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector opposed the anticipatory bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 4 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Manish R Masih, on executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he 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) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he 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 his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge vaibhav