-1- CGHC010383562026 2026:CGHC:42391 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1607 of 2026 1 - Deepak Yadav @ Deepak S/o Smt. Pramila Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Tangarmahri, Tahsil And P.S. Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 2 - Shrawan Yadav S/o Radha Kishun Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 3 K H, Village Putsu, P.S. Jhalriya District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 3 - Surya Yadav @ Surya Prakash Yadav S/o Shri Ajay Aged About 20 Years R/o Indra Gandhi Ward, Village/ City Balrampur, P.S. Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Pasta, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 29/09/2026 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.44 of 2026 registered at Police Station- Pasta, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 221, 3 (5), 308 (2), 351 (2), 356 (3) of Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.10.01 15:30:53 +0530 -2- BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Rukman Barik, an Assistant Teacher posted at Government Primary School, Putsu, and presently working as the In-charge Headmaster, submitted a written complaint alleging that Shrawan Yadav and his associates had been continuously harassing and intimidating him over telephone calls. Shrawan Yadav demanded money from the complainant, stating that he had established a foundation at Tangarmahri, Balrampur, along with his associate, Deepak Yadav, a YouTuber/journalist, and that funds were required for the said foundation. When the complainant refused to provide any money to Shrawan Yadav, on 25.08.2026 Shrawan Yadav, Deepak Yadav, and their associate Surya Yadav entered the school premises and started recording videos without obtaining permission from the school authorities. According to the complaint, they behaved abusively, made insulting and objectionable remarks in the presence of the students, and obstructed the regular teaching activities of the school. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Police Station Pasta registered a criminal case against the applicants for the alleged commission of the offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime. Applicants are reporter and upon finding irregularity in the school, they entered the school premise and found that Teacher present is not properly teaching the students and when the news flashed, false allegations have been levelled against the applicants. Therefore, the applicants may be -3- protected by extending them benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose submission of learned counsel for the applicants and would submit that complainant is a Teacher of the school who lodged a complaint alleging that applicants have entered into school, were preparing the video clips and gave threat to make it viral and there is also allegation that they have demanded Rs.10,000/- also. He contended that parents of some students were present in the school and their statement have been recorded wherein they stated that applicants entered into the school premise, were preparing video and also shouting upon complainant /Teacher. He read over the statement of Neeru Murum present on the spot and Manmati Kumari. In statement given by Neeru, there is mention that applicants were also shouting that they will got the complainant suspended. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the, submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation and the statement of witnesses recorded by police, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow the application for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Sd/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen