Chattisgarh High Court
Mayank Kumar Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14486
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 461 of 2026
Mayank Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra Aged About 38
Years R/o G-7, Sai Vatika, Devpuri, Raipur, Tah. And District- Raipur
(C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station-
Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
For Complainant/Objector : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
27.03.2026
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. 162/2026 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 333, 324(4), 115(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. As per the prosecution's case, in brief is that the complainant RAHUL DEWANGAN lodged a written report at Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 (C.G.), alleging inter alia that she had previously filed a case against the present applicant, which is presently pending trial before the competent Court. It is further alleged that on 22.02.2026 at about 10:30 AM, the present applicant forcibly entered her residence and threatened to kill her if she did not withdraw the said pending case. During the course of the incident, he allegedly assaulted her and caused damage to household articles within her home. It is also alleged that the father and brother of the present applicant have been making threatening calls to her mobile phone, pressurizing her to retract the case, and that the present applicant has been continuously harassing her mother and sister over the phone. On the basis of the said complaint, the police of Police Station Tikrapara registered a First Information Report bearing Crime No. 162/2026 and commenced investigation. 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 that the allegations against him are baseless and motivated by extraneous considerations. It is further submitted that the complainant had earlier lodged an FIR bearing Crime No. 499/2024 at Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.) against the present applicant, and that she used to send WhatsApp messages to him seeking to fulfill her physical as well as financial demands, upon his refusal, she allegedly threatened to falsely implicate him and, in pursuance thereof, has lodged the present case. Copies of the said WhatsApp messages have been filed herewith as 3 Annexure A/4. It is also contended that the allegations against the applicant are based solely on the version of the complainant and have not been substantiated by any independent or reliable evidence during the course of investigation. He further submits that the present case arises out of personal dispute and previous litigation between the parties and has been instituted with an intention to pressurize and harass the applicant. It is argued that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and his arrest would serve no fruitful purpose. Lastly, it is submitted that except for the case mentioned in paragraph 4, arising out of a dispute with the same complainant, in which he has already been granted regular bail by the trial Court on the basis of compromise, 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 allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, involving house trespass, criminal intimidation, assault, and damage to property. It is contended that the applicant forcibly entered the complainant's residence and threatened her to withdraw the pending case, thereby exerting undue pressure upon her. It is further submitted that the conduct of the applicant, along with the alleged involvement of his family members in extending threats, clearly indicates a pattern of harassment and intimidation. It is further argued that the 4 investigation is at a nascent stage and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for proper investigation, 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.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the grounds raised on behalf of the applicant, particularly that the dispute appears to arise out of prior litigation between the parties, that the allegations are yet to be substantiated by any independent evidence, and that custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear necessary. Accordingly, 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 - Mayank Kumar Mishra 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