1 CGHC010375202026 2026:CGHC:42006 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1593 of 2026 1 - Himanshu Verma S/o Tok Singh Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Ganiyari P.S. - Kharora, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kharora, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Varunendra Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 26/09/2026 1. Applicant has preferred First bail 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. 80/2026 registered at Police Station-Kharora, District Raipur RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 324(2), 74, 3(5) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.02.2026, in village Ganiari, Tinku Verma, a family relative of Medini Verma from village Boria, Raipur and his family members had come to Bhanu Verma's house for a wedding. After welcoming the wedding procession, they were taking it home. All were standing along with family members in front of our house. At the same time, at around 9.30 pm, the wedding procession members were arguing among themselves, which applicants nephew Rikesh Verma was watching while standing there. His father Danendra Verma caught hold of Rikesh Verma and brought him towards the house. Then the people of the wedding procession, thinking that they were dragging our wedding procession away, followed them and started abusing our mother and sister with filthy language and threatening to kill them, started beating Danendra Verma and the complainant with hands and fists. After that, the wedding party Tinku Verma and other members of his family came and started beating complainant’s father Tok Singh and elder brother Hemu Verma with their hands and fists. Aditya Verma and Lekh Ram Sahu who came to intervene were also beaten up. Due to the beating, the complainant got injuries on my chest, neck and back and both Aditya Verma and Lekh Ram Sahu got injuries on their heads. Aditya Verma and Lekh Ram Sahu also saw and heard the incident and the FIR was lodged by the complainant/applicant in 3 the nearby police station. Thereafter, another FIR was registered on 07.02.2026 by the complainant. Hence, the anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question and he is not committed any offence. He also contended that on 06.02.2026 when the applicant’s nephew Rikesh Verma was standing near the place from where the wedding procession (Barat) was moving. Father of the applicant caught hold of Rikesh Verma and dragged him towards the house. Upon seeing this the persons of the wedding procession (Barat) came to the house of the applicant who are in about more than 25 to 30 persons and have abused and assaulted the family members. The incident was reported to the concerned police station, based upon which crime bearing number 0076 of 2026 was registered for alleged commission of offence under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5) and 351(2) of BNS. He further submits that pressure was made to enter into settlement and when settlement did not arrive and the applicant has not withdrawn the FIR, on the basis of the false allegation, crime is registered against the applicant on 07.02.2026 at about 06:00 p.m. The second crime is registered only to adopt the pressure tactics. There is no other criminal antecedent registered against the applicant. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 4 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant and submits that from the FIR and also the material available on the case diary, it appears that the applicant has abused and assaulted the members of wedding procession (Barat) and also have damaged the 4 four wheelers standing nearby by breaking the windshields and the door glass. He however submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant mentioned in the case diary. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with bail application. 6. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties, further considering that the applicant has lodged report in the concerned police station earlier on 06.02.2026 at about 10:00 p.m. i.e. immediately after the incident. There is no criminal antecedent against the applicant, 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 aforementioned crime number, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹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: 5 (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 Ravi Mandavi