1 CGHC010374342026 2026:CGHC:42390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1613 of 2026 Premlal S/o Nankiram Rathiya Aged About 27 Years R/o Kharsiya Police Station Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Chaal District Raigarh Chhattisgrh. ...Respondent For Applicant :Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Respondent-State :Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer. For Objector :Ms. Manisha Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 29/09/2026 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. 195/2026 registered at Police Station – Chaal District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 119(1), 126(2), 296, 3(5) & 351(3) of the BNS. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.08.2026 at about 09:00 PM, the complainant, namely Malik Ram Dansena, went to deliver food to truck drivers near Thakur Devras Gate, Bharbhouna Road. Thereafter, he was informed by Shatrughan Vasudev that the accused persons had blocked their truck, assaulted them, and looted money meant for diesel. When the complainant reached the spot, the accused persons allegedly abused and threatened him and thereafter assaulted him and stabbed VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.09.30 16:22:46 +0530 2 him in the stomach with a knife, causing injuries. It is further alleged that Shekhar Dansena looted Rs.2,200/- from him and deflated the front wheel of the truck. On the basis of the complaint, the aforesaid crime was registered against the accused persons. 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 Section 119(1) of the BNS has been invoked only to make the incident appear more grievous. He further submits that there was a dispute between the parties. The applicant is engaged in the business of transporting sand, and in that course, a dispute arose between the complainant and his friends and the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Hence, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that the complainant himself has made a submission before the learned Trial Court that he has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant. However, the learned Trial Court has not taken the said no-objection into consideration in the appropriate manner. He further submits that the applicant is also present before this Court through his counsel. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that, from the impugned order, it is apparent that the complainant has submitted his no objection to the grant of bail. However, apart from the complainant, other persons also sustained injuries in the incident. Upon being asked about the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured persons, he submits that the injuries are simple in nature, as per the MLC report. 3 6. Upon specific query regarding criminal antecedents of the applicant, learned counsel submits that there is no mention of any criminal antecedents in the case diary. 7. Ms. Manisha Yadav, learned counsel for the objector, submits that she has no objection in grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question (195/2026), 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. 11.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