1 2026:CGHC:16621 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 528 of 2026 1 - Rajaram Yadav S/o Lt. Bisahu Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Khamtarai, P.S. Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Sunita Yadav W/o Rajaram Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Khamtarai, P.S. Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Amit Yadav S/o Rajaram Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Khamtarai, P.S. Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/04/2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 203/2026, registered 2 at Police Station- Sakri, District- Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 191(2) & 324(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the prosecutrix at Police Station Shyang, District Korba, Crime No. 12/2026 was registered against the accused Ram Naresh Yadav for offences punishable under Sections 331(1), 305(A), 74 and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is alleged that on 09.02.2026, the accused unlawfully entered the house of the prosecutrix and committed theft of cash. It is further alleged that the accused outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix and, with an intention to cause her death, forcibly administered pesticide to her and thereafter fled from the spot. The prosecutrix has specifically named the accused in her complaint. During investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded and other evidence has been collected. The case is presently under investigation. The allegations against the accused are of serious nature involving house trespass, theft, assault on modesty, and attempt to administer poison with intent to kill. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to prior enmity with the complainant party, who are their relatives. It is submitted that the applicants had earlier lodged a complaint against the complainants, and in retaliation, a false case has been 3 registered against them. It is further submitted that the applicants are poor persons, daily wage earners, and have small children to support. Their arrest would cause severe hardship to their families. The applicants have no criminal antecedents and are permanent residents of their respective addresses. There is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with evidence. They are ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, grant of anticipatory bail has been prayed for. 4. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the application, submits that the applicants are absconding since the date of incident and their mobile phones are switched off. It is further submitted that if anticipatory bail is granted, it would embolden the applicants and there is every likelihood of them absconding again, thereby adversely affecting the investigation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From the case diary, it appears that on 26.02.2026, the complainant Mukesh Kumar Yadav lodged a report stating that on the same day at about 09:40 AM, the present applicants along with other persons came to his house in connection with a family dispute between his brother and his wife. During the altercation, the applicants allegedly abused the complainant in filthy 4 language, threatened him with dire consequences, assaulted him by slaps, and caused damage to his motorcycle (CG 10 BN 3338) and house door. During investigation, statements of the complainant and witnesses have been recorded, site map has been prepared, and damage to the motorcycle has been documented. The investigation is still in progress. It is further evident from the case diary that the applicants have been absconding since the date of the incident and are not available at their residence. Their conduct of evading the investigation has adversely affected the progress of the investigation. Although the offences alleged are of bailable nature, the conduct of the applicants in absconding and not cooperating with the investigation is a relevant factor. Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and is not to be granted as a matter of routine, particularly when the applicants are not cooperating with the investigation. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and particularly the conduct of the applicants in absconding, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of applicants- Rajaram Yadav, Sunita Yadav and Amit Yadav involved in Crime No. 203/2026 under aforesaid sections at Police Station- Sakri, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the Trial Court shall 5 make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously as soon as possible in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Madhurima