-1- CGHC010364142026 2026:CGHC:41095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1543 of 2026 1 - N.P. Chandravanshi S/o Late Shri Sidhram Chandravanshi Aged About 62 Years Occupation, Advocate By Profession R/o Hanumanghadi, Chowk Rajkishor, Nagar P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Bhagwati Kashyap W/o Late Shri Sudhir Kashyap Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Advocate By Profession R/o Hanumanghadi, Chowk Rajkishor, Nagar P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Civil Line District Bilaspur C. G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 21/09/2026 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.502 of 2026 registered at Police Station- Civil Lines, Bilaspur (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 61, 228, 229, 233, 246, 318, 335, 336, 338, 340 (2), 3 (5) of the BNS. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.09.22 18:35:03 +0530 -2- 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.04.2026, the complainant, on behalf of the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, submitted a written complaint before Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur wherein it was alleged that, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 2533/2025, titled Premika Kujur & Ors. v. Murli Yadav & Ors., pending before the said Tribunal, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, along with a false affidavit, was filed on behalf of Premika Kujur and others through their Advocates, namely N. P. Chandravanshi, Smt. Bhagwati Kashyap, Shubham Chandravanshi and Suraj Kumar on 24.09.2025. In the said claim application, Premika Kujur was stated to be the wife of the deceased namely Prabhat Kujur. However, when Premika Kujur appeared before the Tribunal, she stated that she was the wife of Jony Kujur and that the deceased Prabhat Kujur,was her brother-in-law. She further stated that she had neither executed any affidavit nor filed any claim case before the Tribunal, nor she engaged or appointed any Advocate for the said proceedings. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a criminal case was registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that from the statement which is recorded by the Court it is appearing that father of deceased has come to Bilaspur in the month of September 2025 and has engaged counsel/applicants. However, from the evidence it is also appearing that on that particular date i.e. 24.09.2025, they have not come to Bilaspur. From which it cannot be inferred that family members of -3- deceased have not engaged the applicants to file claim case. Applicants are practicing Advocates for more than 25 years. There is no likelihood of their absconding. They will participate in the investigation. Hence, they may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the the submission of learned counsel for the applicants and submits that according to complaint made, it is appearing that Claim Case has been filed without instructions of the Clint. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available in this bail application including statements of Premika Kujur, Isdor Kujr, Mathilda Kujur. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, 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; -4- (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