1 CGHC010332222026 2026:CGHC:38364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1414 of 2026 1 - Brijesh Yadav S/o Sukhu Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Shankargarh, Police Station And Tahsil - Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) 2 - Rupesh Yadav S/o Janki Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Lau, Police Station And Tahsil - Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, (C.G.) 3 - Ashish Yadav S/o Sanjeev Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Shankargarh, Police Station And Tahsil - Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) 4 - Abhishek Yadav S/o Sanjeev Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Shankargarh, Police Station And Tahsil - Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.09.01 11:35:58 +0530 2 For Applicants : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, PL. For Objector : Mr. Pawas Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.08.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.81/2026 registered at Police Station – Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 191(2), 332(c), 304(2) and 331(2) of BNS. 2. As per the case of prosecution, there is a dispute between the parties in respect of land bearing Khasra No.1077/3, admeasuring 1.011 hectares, situated at Village Dohna, Police Station Shankargarh. It is alleged that on 07.07.2026, the Applicant and other co-accused persons, in furtherance of their common object, entered the premises of the complainant, assaulted and abused him and other members of his family and extended threats. Based on these allegations, the offences as mentioned above have been 3 registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of a longstanding land dispute and existing enmity between the parties. It is submitted that the father of Applicant No.1 had lodged a written complaint against the complainant and his family members on 05.07.2026 alleging that they had forcibly broken the boundary wall of the disputed land and entered upon the same with a tractor, whereas the present FIR was lodged by the complainant only thereafter on 07.07.2026, indicating that it is a counterblast to the said complaint. He further submits that no injury has been caused to the complainant or any member of his family and that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature. It is further submitted that the Applicants’ family has been in possession of the disputed land for several years pursuant to a registered sale deed and the revenue proceedings initiated by the complainant’s side were also decided in favour of the Applicants’ family by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, vide order dated 12.05.2026. It is lastly submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the Applicants 4 may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel and learned Counsel for the Objector oppose the bail application. Learned State Counsel submits that the case diary is not available, there are allegations against the Applicants of assaulting the complainant and other persons with sticks and wooden clubs, and there are criminal antecedents against some of the Applicants. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the fact that the dispute between the parties arises out of a longstanding land dispute, the father of Applicant No.1 had lodged a complaint against the complainant’s side prior to registration of the present FIR, no injury has been caused to the complainant or any member of his family and the revenue proceedings concerning the disputed land have been decided in favour of the Applicants’ family by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, vide order dated 12.05.2026 and further considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, without further commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the Applicants. 5 6. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicants – Brijesh Yadav, Rupesh Yadav, Ashish Yadav and Abhishek Yadav on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicant/s 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/her/them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicant/s shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant/s shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him/her/them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant/s and the surety shall submit a copy of his/her/their adhaar card along with a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant/s shall not involve himself/herself/themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Priya