-1- CGHC010353182026 2026:CGHC:40718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1535 of 2026 1 - Kanha Niyal S/o Shri Laba Niyal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Badcher, Post - Badcher, Police Station- Kegaon, Tehsi - Golmunda, District- Kalahandi (Odisha) 2 - Sushant Kanda S/o Shri Tanka Kanda Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Turechadda, Panchayat- Chapriya, Police Station- Kegaon, Tehsi - Golmunda, District- Kalahandi (Odisha) 3 - Gulab Kumar Baghel S/o Shri Ramlal Baghel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village - Parsathi, Police Station And Tehsil - Aarang, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 17/09/2026 1. Applicants have filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory bail as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.185 of 2024 registered at Police Station- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 326 and 34 of Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.09.18 17:59:50 +0530 -2- the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.04.2024 at about 01:00 A.M., the complainant, along with his family members and friends, had gone to Kesariya Dhaba, Mahasamund, for dinner. It is alleged that while some children of complainant family were playing cricket in the parking area of the dhaba, certain employees of the dhaba objected to the same, which led to a verbal altercation between the parties. Thereafter, it is alleged that dhaba owner Randhir Singh Khanuja, along with other employees, reached the spot and, in furtherance of their common intention, abused and assaulted the complainant and his family members with fists, kicks, sword, iron rod, cricket bat and sticks, causing injuries to them. It is further alleged that the accused persons criminally intimidated the complainant party by threatening them with dire consequences and chased them from the spot. Two members of the complainant's family were wrongfully confined inside the dhaba premises, assaulted, and deprived of their mobile phone, gold chain and cash. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Crime No. 185/2024 was registered at Police Station Mahasamund against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, the present applicants, along with the other employees of the dhaba, were also implicated as the assailants. The investigation is stated to be pending. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present -3- case on the basis of omnibus and general allegations, without there being any specific overt act attributed to them either in the FIR or in the material collected during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the owner of Dhaba had also lodged a counter FIR bearing Crime No. 184/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307, 323 and 506-B of the IPC against complainant party, which clearly indicates that the incident arose out of a mutual altercation between both sides. He submits that the accused persons in the said counter case have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1233/2025 (Dheeraj Sarfraj) vide order dated 13.08.2025 and in MCRCA No. 600/2024 (Sahil Sarfaraz) vide order dated 12.06.2024. It is further contended that co- accused Dharmendra Kumar Yadav has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 973/2026 vide order dated 30.06.2026, while co-accused Harmeet Singh Khanuja and Randhir Singh Khanuja have also been granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 1071/2026 and MCRCA No. 1070/2026 respectively, both vide orders dated 13.07.2026. The case of the present applicants stands on much better footing. Therefore, they may also be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicants. He however does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that other similarly placed accused persons have already been extended benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court. -4- 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail, counter FIR is registered against complainant party, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the application. 7. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants in connection with the aforesaid crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting them on each of them executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer. Applicants shall also abide by the following conditions :- “(i) that the applicants shall remain available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) the applicants 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer; Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-/---/-/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen