Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38339 (CHH)

SATNAM SINGH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRCA/1612/2026 · 2026-10-05

Shri Parth Prateem Sahu

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

-1- CGHC010377792026 2026:CGHC:43333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1612 of 2026 1 - Satnam Singh S/o Dalbir Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o Near Mayur Garden, Mother Teressa Nagar, Camp-2, P.S. Chhavani Tahsil And Distt- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Vibhutibhushan Babu S/o Mahesh Chand Babu Aged About 65 Years R/o 952, Model Town, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And Distt- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Shriram Gupta S/o Late R.B. Gupta Aged About 56 Years R/o M I G 2, 1039, Housing Board, Ghansinagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And Distt- Durg (C.G.) … Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, Police Station Supela, Bhilai, Distt- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Prafull Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Anant Pajpai, Panel Lawyer For Objector : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 06/10/2026 1. Applicants have filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.10.07 15:15:11 +0530 -2- for grant of anticipatory bail as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.1387 of 2026 registered at Police Station- Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 217, 221, 229, 248, 318, 356, 61 of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Vishal Son filed a complaint on 17.07.2026 at Police Station, Supela, Bhilai and a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Durg on 21.07.2026, alleging therein that applicants have filed false complaint against him to police authorities regarding illegal retention of a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no CG 04AP 5000. Later on, complainant also filed an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg (CG) on 28.07.2026, whereupon, Chief Judicial Magistrate by its order directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Supela to register an FIR against the applicants under Sections 217, 221, 229, 248, 318, 356, and 61 of the BNS, pursuant to which, offence under Sections 217, 221, 229, 248, 318, 356 and 61 of the BNS have been registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that complaint case was lodged by way of filing an application under Section 175 (3) of BNSS alleging that false complaint/report has been lodged against the complainant mentioning false facts. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, after enquiry, directed for registration of aforementioned offences against the applicants, based upon which, crime is registered in which applicants are apprehending -3- their arrest. He contended that applicants are employees of Ex- Square Airomax company. He contended that one Scorpio vehicle which is registered in the name of company was taken over by the complainant. However, it was not returned and therefore complaint was lodged. After investigation, closer report was filed. Thereafter, one Ankit Singh has filed CRMP before this Court pleading therein that Scorpio vehicle was parked in the residential premise of complainant therein. However, till date, vehicle was not returned. Thereafter, again a complaint was made to Police Station- Supela as also Superintendent of Police Durg, raising grievance with regard to keeping of the vehicle of company in which applicants are working. He contended that there is no ill-intention of applicants of lodging any false report or complaint. He also submits that whether the complaint or report lodged by applicants are false or not will be subject matter of outcome of proceedings pending. There is no other criminal antecedent of applicants. Hence, they may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the contents of complaint on which FIR is registered is that the applicants are involved in lodging false complaint/report against the complainant who is the police official and holding the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police and FIR is registered based on order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate on complaint application filed under Section 175 (3) of BNSS. -4- 5. Learned counsel for the Objector would also oppose the submission of learned counsel for the applicants and would submit that applicants are engaged in filing multiple complainants with ulterior motive by which reputation of complainant is adversely affected. He also contended that during investigation done on the complaint lodged by applicants, it has come that there is no nexus of the complainant with the said Scorpio vehicle. Hence, the applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation as is reflecting from copy of FIR as also complaint and further considering that there is no other criminal antecedents of applicants, applicants are employee of a company, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the present application. 8. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants in connection with the aforesaid crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting on each of them 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. Applicants shall also abide by the following conditions :- -5- “(i) that the applicants shall remain available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) the applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.” Certified copy as per rules. Sd/----/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen