1 CGHC010290282026 2026:CGHC:32946 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1196 of 2026 Manohar Sahu S/o Shivcharan Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Barkohi, Police Station Bhoramdev District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Subham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 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.31/2026 registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(2), 331(3) & 351 of the BNS. 2. As per the prosecution story, the present applicant has been named as an accused in Crime No. 31/2026 registered at Police Station Mahila VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.31 10:47:44 +0530 2 Thana, District Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(2), 331(3) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is alleged that on 01.07.2026, at about 6:00 p.m., the applicant attempted to outrage the modesty of the complainant. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the following day, i.e., 02.07.2026, when the complainant and her husband had gone to the agricultural field for work, a scuffle took place between the applicant and the complainant's husband. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant regarding the alleged incident, the aforesaid crime was registered and the applicant was implicated as an accused. The applicant has denied the allegations and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity and that he is, in fact, the victim of the incident. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 31/2026 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh. 3. Learned counsel for theapplicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity between the complainant's husband and the applicant. It is contended that on 02.07.2026, the applicant was assaulted by Durgesh Sahu, who also threatened to lodge a false complaint against him, and that on the same day, the complainant's husband attempted to outrage the modesty of the applicant's wife, resulting in a scuffle in which the applicant was assaulted by the complainant's husband. Thereafter, the applicant's wife lodged a report against the complainant's husband, which was registered as Crime No. 38/2026 at Police Station Bhoramdev, District Kabirdham, for offences punishable under Sections 3 74, 296, 351(3) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure A/3. It is further submitted that the present FIR has been lodged as a counterblast and with a view to take revenge, particularly when the complainant apprehended that the applicant's wife would lodge a report against him, and there is an unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution story. The applicant further submits that he sustained injuries in the incident and remained under medical treatment at District Hospital, Kabirdham, from where he was discharged on 17.07.2026, and the medical documents and photographs have been filed as Annexure A/4. It is contended that the applicant has not committed any offence and the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not prima facie made out. It is further submitted that the applicant's hospitalization and the injuries sustained by him support his contention that the present FIR is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by his wife. The applicant is an old person and a rustic villager, and his entire family is dependent upon him. He has no criminal antecedents, there, it is prayed that the applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 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 of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, the fact that a counter-case has also been registered at the instance of the 4 applicant's wife, the medical documents indicating injuries sustained by the applicant, the absence of any criminal antecedents, and the material available in the case diary, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Manohar Sahu, on executing a personal bond and one local 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav