1 CGHC010391052026 2026:CGHC:43472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1658 of 2026 Uday Chakradhari S/o Tameshwar Chakradhari, Aged About 22 Years R/o Raju Bada, Ansari Gali, Talapara, Police Station - Civil Lines, Tahsil And Dis- trict - Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant :Mr.Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. For Respondent-State :Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy .G.A. Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 07/10/2026 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. 1202/2026 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.08.2026 at about 12:45 a.m., the complainant, Raja Mahelange, received a telephone call from his brother, injured Suraj Kosle, informing him that he had been assaulted by Prem Dahire and Uday Chakradhari in connection with a monetary dispute. The injured further informed him that he was going to Police Station Civil Lines, District VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.10.08 15:24:36 +0530 2 Bilaspur, to lodge a report. When the complainant reached the police station, he found that the injured was being taken to the hospital for medical treatment. Thereafter, Police Station Civil Lines registered Crime No. 1202/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the present applicant and the main accused, Prem Dahire. 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 weapon has been seized from co-accused Prem Dahire and that the injuries sustained by the injured may have been caused by the assault committed by co-accused Prem Dahire. Therefore, he prays that the applicant be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that, as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant, along with the other co-accused persons, assaulted the injured and actively participated in the commission of the offence. He further submits that the injured sustained six injuries, which were caused by hard and sharp objects. He also submits that the applicant has three criminal antecedents relating to abuse and assault, including one case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Thus, the applicant is a habitual offender. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3 6. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and further considering that the applicant has three criminal antecedents, appears to be a habitual offender, I am not inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, is rejected. Sd/- Sd (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE vaibhav