1 2026:CGHC:20229 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 642 of 2026 Rahul Kumar Verma S/o Bisendra Kumar Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o 72/ F Risali Sector Bhilai Nagar Civic Centre (Wrongly) Mentioned As Civil Centre In The Cause Tittle Of The Impugned Order) Durg District- Durg (C.G.) … Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Dindayal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Complainant/Objector : Mr. Ankush Borkar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.04.2026 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. 157/2026 registered at Police Station Dindayal Nagar, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 236(f), 326(g), 238(ख), 61(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief is that on 27.02.2026, the complainant had parked two vehicles, namely a Maruti Brezza and a Hyundai Venue, near his residence. It is alleged that at about 02:10 A.M., one Shreyansh Pandey, who resides behind the house of the complainant, noticed that both the vehicles were engulfed in flames and immediately informed the complainant. Upon receiving the information, the complainant came outside and found both vehicles on fire, and with the assistance of nearby persons, managed to extinguish the flames. It is further the case of the prosecution that unknown persons, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, intentionally set fire to the said vehicles, thereby causing substantial loss to the complainant, estimated to be approximately Rs. 10–12 lakhs. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant are wholly false and fabricated, and his name has surfaced only on the basis of the memorandum/statement of co-accused persons, which by itself is not sufficient to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. It is also contended that the applicant is not named in the FIR and there are no specific or direct allegations against him, nor is there any material available on record to establish his involvement in the alleged incident. She further submits that at the time of the alleged occurrence, the applicant was present at Durg and not at 3 the place of incident, which clearly rules out his involvement. It is thus submitted that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and further he has no other criminal antecedents. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State as well as learned counsel for the complainant/ objector opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the complainant had parked his vehicles, namely a Maruti Brezza and a Hyundai Venue, near his residence, and in the intervening night at about 02:10 A.M., both the vehicles were found engulfed in flames, as first noticed by a witness, namely Shreyansh Pandey, who immediately informed the complainant. It is submitted that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie reveals that the incident was not accidental but a deliberate act committed in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy by unknown persons, resulting in substantial loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 10–12 lakhs. It is further submitted that the nature and gravity of the offence are serious, and the manner in which the incident has been carried out indicates a pre-planned act, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the material available on record, this Court finds that the incident pertains to alleged mischief by fire causing damage to property, and the prosecution case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence, with no direct allegation or specific overt act attributed to the present applicant. It is also noteworthy that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his implication appears to be based on the statement of co-accused persons, which would be subject to trial. Further, the applicant has taken a plea of alibi and there is no material on record at this stage conclusively establishing his presence at the place of occurrence. In such circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Rahul Kumar 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 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. 5 (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 her 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 Rahul Dewangan