1 CGHC010286622026 2026:CGHC:32362 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1193 of 2026 1 - Chetan Mehar @ Chetan Rautiya S/o Late Shri Hiralal Mehar, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Jhalap P.S. And Tah. Patewa, Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Patewa, Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, P.L. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28/07/2026 1. This is the first application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 with Crime No. 114/2026 registered at Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 221, 224, 238, 351(3), 121(1), 132 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.06.2026, the complainant, Anil Kumar Jharia, Excise Sub-Inspector, submitted a written report stating that, on the basis of information received from the District Excise Officer, Mahasamund, an excise team reached the Compo Liquor Shop at Jhalap, where it was found that the accused persons were allegedly engaged in the illegal sale and storage of country-made liquor. During the course of the raid, the accused persons allegedly abused and assaulted the salesman of the liquor shop, obstructed the excise officials in the discharge of their official duties, forcibly took away the seized liquor and fled from the spot after extending threats of dire consequences. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered against the applicant and other co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 221, 224, 238, 351(3), 121(1), 132 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the matter is under investigation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that all the three criminal antecedents of the applicant have already been disposed of and no criminal case is presently pending against him. Learned 3 counsel further contends that the principal co-accused, Awadhesh Mirdha, has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 09.07.2026. It is submitted that the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing as that of the said co-accused and, therefore, on the ground of parity, the applicant is also entitled to the same relief. It is further submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that the co-accused, Awadhesh Mirdha, was granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court solely on account of his 60% permanent physical disability. It is further submitted that the present applicant had actively assaulted the Excise Officer as well as the salesman of the liquor shop during the incident. In such circumstances, it is contended that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail and, accordingly, the present application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available in the case diary and the specific allegation that the applicant actively assaulted the Excise Officer as well as the salesman of the liquor 4 shop while obstructing them in the discharge of their official duties, this Court is not inclined to extend the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Merely because the co-accused, Awadhesh Mirdha, has been granted anticipatory bail would not entitle the present applicant to claim the same relief on the ground of parity, as the said co-accused was granted anticipatory bail considering his 60% permanent physical disability, which is a distinguishing circumstance. In the considered opinion of this Court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 7. Accordingly, this first bail application of Applicant- Chetan Mehar @ Chetan Rautiya involved in Crime No. 114/2026 registered at Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 221, 224, 238, 351(3), 121(1), 132 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), is hereby rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the concerned trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. SSd/-d/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Ruchi