1 CGHC010359932026 2026:CGHC:41772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1578 of 2026 Gautam Manjhi (Sarpanch) S/o Satrudhan Manjhi Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Mandiyapara, Bokaramunda, P.S. Bagbahra, Tahsil Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund,Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent For Applicant :Mr. V. K. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent-State :Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 25/09/2026 1. Applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 69/2025 registered at Police Station – Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 281,125(a),125(b), 238 and 109 of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, namely, Nurpat Yadav, lodged a report stating that his elder son, Hemsagar Yadav, was working as a journalist with IBC24. On 16.02.2025, Hemsagar had gone to attend a party meeting. At about 6:00 p.m., VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.09.26 14:31:37 +0530 2 the complainant was informed by Mukuram Netam that Hemsagar had met with an accident and that the main accused, Dashrath Gond, after hitting Hemsagar with his vehicle, had left him lying on the middle of the road. Thereafter, the complainant reached the spot, took his son from the road and admitted him to Chandi Hospital for treatment, where he was found to be in a comatose condition. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, a report was lodged against the accused Dashrath Gond. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR and that his name has surfaced only in the supplementary statement of the injured, which was recorded on 12.08.2026. He further contends that the FIR was lodged on 10.03.2025 and, thereafter, after lapse of more than one year and four months, the applicant has been implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and, therefore, prays that the applicant be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that it is not in dispute that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. However, he submits that the injured person has specifically named the applicant in the supplementary statement recorded on 12.08.2026. He further submits that the prosecution does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. 7. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question (69/2025), he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his 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. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions: (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE vaibhav