1 2026:CGHC:10780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 339 of 2026 Dinesh Verma S/o Venkateshwar Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o- Graam- Raaikheda, Thana- Kharora, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.), Police Station- Kharora, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sourabh Sahu, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02/03/2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.73/2026 registered at Police Station –Kharora, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 191(3), 332(b), 296, 351(2), 115(2), 324(5), 309(4), 309(6) of B.N.S. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.03.03 10:49:38 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Pappu Purena Satnami, submitted a written report at Police Station Kharora stating that he is a resident of Village and Post Beldarsivni, Police Station and Tehsil Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.), and operates a family restaurant named “Mohini Mogra” at Village Chicholi, Police Station and Tehsil Kharora, District Raipur, On 23.01.2026, on the occasion of Basant Panchami, a fair (Madai Mela) and a night cultural program were organized at Village Raikheda. On the same night, between approximately 2:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m., the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Raikheda, Dinesh Verma, along with his brother Surendra Verma, Hemant Verma, Deputy Sarpanch Bhojram Dheewar, Ujit Narayan, Manish Verma, and about 25–30 other associates, allegedly came to his family restaurant at Chicholi. They abused the manager Kamleshwar Bandhe and Tarun Ghritlahare in filthy language, forced the door open, and entered the premises. It is alleged that they took Rs.24,000/- in cash from the cash counter (galla) along with two mobile phones (Vivo and Oppo), and put them in their jeans pockets. Their associates allegedly vandalized the shop. When Tarun Ghritlahare objected and said he would inform the owner, Deputy Sarpanch Bhojram Dheewar allegedly caught his collar and assaulted him. It is further alleged that the CCTV camera system, including the DVD cable and television installed near the cash counter in the store room, was broken by Sarpanch Dinesh Verma and his brother Hemant Verma using sticks and iron rods. Tarun and Kamleshwar allegedly fled from the back door to save themselves. The accused persons allegedly damaged all articles in the restaurant and six motorcycles belonging to workers using rods and crowbars, causing extensive damage. The 3 prosecution story further states that at about 3:25 a.m., Tarun Ghritlahare informed the complainant about the incident through Devendra Yadav (mechanic). The complainant immediately went to Police Station Kharora at about 3:30 a.m. and informed the Station House Officer, who allegedly told him not to return to the restaurant that night as the Sarpanch and others had just left and police personnel had been deployed there. At about 4:00 a.m., Devendra Yadav, Tarun Ghritlahare, and Kamleshwar Bandhe allegedly saw the accused again vandalizing the restaurant in the presence of police personnel, causing damage amounting to approximately Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand). On the basis of the said report of complainant Pappu Purena Satnami, Police Station Kharora registered Crime No. 73/2026 under Sections 191(3), 332, 296, 351(2), 115(2), 324(5), 309(4), etc., of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the applicant, along with villagers of Raikheda and Chichols, had complained to the authorities regarding alleged illegal sale of liquor and sheltering of antisocial elements at Mohini Mogra Dhaba. Instead of taking action, the police registered a false case against the applicant to suppress public protest. He would submit that the FIR appears to have been lodged under political and community pressure exerted by the complainant, as reflected from his representations and subsequent letter to the Superintendent of Police regarding postponement of a proposed protest. He would submit that the applicant is a social worker and he has no criminal antecedents. He would submit that the applicant is permanent resident of address shown in the cause title, 4 there is no chance of his absconding and applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court, therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. He would submit that allegation against the applicant is that he assaulted the two persons in dhaba but their injuries have not been examined. He would submit that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record, considering the fact that the injuries sustained by the two injured have not been examined, applicant has no criminal antecedents and also considering the fact that investigation and trial are likely to take some time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Dinesh Verma, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person 5 acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) 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. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri