1 2026:CGHC:18150 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 572 of 2026 Mahendra Sidar S/o Soukhilal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Birra, P.S. Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)(Now- Sakti) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, P.S. Jaijaipur, Distt. Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.04.2026 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.94/2026 registered at Police Station – Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2) & 331(2) of the BNS 2023. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.22 10:59:54 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief is that on 29.03.2026 complainant lodged a complaint that she is residing at village Birra and her 2 sons were out of station and she was sleeping at her house with her grandsons and the said house was under renovation wherein they have demolished some part of construction and because of which some part of the construction was open and by taking benefit of the same demolition, the applicant entered the house of the complainant and tried to press the neck of the complainant as a result of which she started shouting and due to previous enmity the applicant started using filthy languages and threatened the complainant to cause death and committed mar peet with the complainant by hand and fist and thereby committed the offences. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint and the offences under section 296, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS was registered against the applicant and during its investigation, offence under section 331(2) was added and the case is still pending investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there exists prior enmity between the complainant and the applicant, and due to such animosity, the FIR has been lodged with a mala fide intention. Initially, offences under Sections 296, 115(2), and 351(3) of the BNS, which are bailable in nature, were registered against the applicant; however, thereafter, the applicant received a threatening call from an unknown person demanding money and warning that non- bailable sections would be added if the demand was not fulfilled. In this regard, the applicant lodged a complaint before the concerned police authorities on 06.04.2026 along with screenshots of the call details. 3 Subsequent to the said complaint, a non-bailable offence under Section 331(2) of the BNS was added against the applicant, which clearly reflects the mala fide intention of the prosecution. The applicant is a simple villager with no previous criminal antecedents, and only on account of prior enmity, a false and concocted case has been fabricated against him. It is further pertinent to mention that from the FIR itself, it is clear that at the time of its registration, only bailable offences were invoked, and the non-bailable offence under Section 331(2) of the BNS has been added subsequently, which is not made out against the applicant. The applicant is about 35 years of age and is the sole earning member of his family; therefore, if the benefit of anticipatory bail is not granted, he and his family will suffer undue hardship and irreparable loss. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, undertakes to abide by all conditions and directions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court, and is ready to furnish adequate surety. Grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant would not defeat the ends of justice, and the applicant reserves his right to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, the material available on record, and the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured, which appear to be simple in nature, 4 therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Mahendra Sidar, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he 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 fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he 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) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav