Chattisgarh High Court
Chaitan Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11701
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 377 of 2026
Chaitan Singh S/o Shri Bhagwana Singh Aged About 53 Years R/o Vill-
Dandai, P.S. And Tah Sakti, Dist- Sakti ( C.G. ). ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. P.S. Sakti, Dist- Sakti ( C .G. ).
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. VAIBHAV For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.12 11:27:11 +0530 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.03.2026
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.467/2025 registered at Police Station - Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 296 and 351 of the BNS.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that, the complainant Kheerram Chauhan lodged the complaint on 13.12.2025 at about 12:52 PM. 2 stating that on 12.12.2025 at about 09:30 P.M. he was present near Shamlai Dai Manjha Chowk, at that time the applicant came on the spot and because of previous dispute used the filthy language against the complainant and threaten to kill him and also caused the injury in his face and hand with sharp weapon kept by him, that one Samaru Yadav and local resident have seen the incident. That on the complaint of the complainant Police Station Sakti, Dist- Sakti (C.G.) registered the Crime No. 467/2025 dated 13.12.2025 for the alleged offences punishable U/s 118(2), 296 & 351(3) of BNS (326, 294 & 506 of I.P.C.) despite the fact that, the applicant has been falsely implicated by the complainant, that the applicant has not caused any grievous injury with any sharp edge weapon, that there was simple quarrel between the applicant and complainant and both have received simple injury, therefore both have not lodged any complaint against each other but, subsequently the complainant has made the false complaint against the applicant, but at the time of M.L.C. the Doctor has suggested for X- ray and for examination through Radiologist, but he refused to examine himself, that medical documents not support the story of the prosecution, that there is no chance of absconding of the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. It is further submitted that the applicant and the complainant are residents of the same village and there was only a simple quarrel between them, due to which the complainant initially refused to get himself examined through a higher medical authority. The injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature; however, the police have registered the offence under Section 118(2) of the BNS (corresponding to Section 326 of the 3 IPC) in the absence of any medical evidence showing grievous injury caused by a dangerous weapon. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 118(2) of the BNS are not made out and the complaint appears to have been lodged under political pressure. He further submits that although the injured is alleged to have sustained injuries, the learned trial Court observed that the nature of the injuries would be ascertained only after radiological examination and orthopaedic opinion. Despite the fact that the final medical opinion regarding the nature of the injuries was not available at that stage, the learned trial Court rejected the bail application. The applicant is cooperating with the investigation and there is no likelihood of his absconding. It is also submitted that no other criminal case is pending against the applicant. The applicant undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that the applicant has five previous criminal antecedents; therefore, he is not entitled to the grant 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 the allegations and the material available on record, it appears that the dispute between the applicant and the complainant arose out of a previous dispute and the incident is alleged to have occurred during a quarrel between the parties. The medical evidence with regard to the 4 nature of the injuries is not yet conclusive, as the injured was advised to undergo X-ray and examination by a Radiologist, however, the same was not conducted. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the bail application.
7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant - Chaitan Singh, 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