[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Vivek Singh Banafar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15378
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 490 of 2026
Vivek Singh Banafar S/o Shri Sanat Singh Banafar Aged About 36 Years R/o
Banafar Tent House, Durga Pandal, In Front Of State Bank, Balco Nagar,
Korba, Tahsil And Distt.- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. Police Station - Balco Nagar, Korba,
Distt.- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.
VAIBHAV
SINGH
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.04.2026
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.137/2026
registered at Police Station - Balco Nagar, Korba, District - Korba(C.G.)
for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5), 351(3),
324(4), 333 of the BNS 2023.
2. The prosecution story, in brief is that, on 04.03.2026 the
victim/complainant Virendra Vikram Singh made a written complaint
before the police station Balco Nagar, Korba by stating that, he is
holding the post of Engineer in Ahulwaliya Company and residing in
company's guest house. On 04.03.2026 at about1.00 P.M., during Holy
celebrations some unknown persons entered the guest house of
Ahulwaliya Company and committed threatened by using filthy
language and started breaking the windows, doors, chairs and when
the complaint objected the same, then they beat the complaint, due to
which the complaint suffered gravies injuries in his body part. The
complaint further stated that the accused persons also assaulted, cook
Vinod Singh Rathore and Company Engineer Rajesh Dinga and in the
said act the Vinod Singh Rathore and Rajesh Dinga also got injured.
That, after receiving the said written complaint the concerned police
registered the FIR on the same day against the Nidhi Sahu, Promod
Sahu and one Tent Wala Banafar (present applicant) under the aforsaid
offences.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that in
the present case solely on the basis of the statement of one Hemant
Manikpuri, without any proper identification or independent evidence. At
the time of the alleged incident, the applicant was present at his tent
house where he was celebrating, and upon learning about the
registration of the FIR, he immediately submitted a written complaint
before the concerned Superintendent of Police as well as the
concerned police station, requesting deletion of his name from the
case. The applicant also submitted CCTV footage of the date of
incident, i.e. 04.03.2026, before the police authorities to establish his
presence at the tent house at the relevant time, but despite the same,
the police registered the case against him without conducting a proper
investigation. It is further submitted that the complainant himself, after
learning the true facts, submitted a no-objection application along with
an affidavit dated 16.03.2026 stating that the present applicant had no
involvement in the alleged crime and praying for deletion of his name
from the case. The applicant is also suffering from a serious problem in
his left knee and has been advised surgery by the doctor. So far as his
criminal antecedents are concerned, out of the three previous cases
registered against him, one case under Section 25 of the Arms Act
ended in acquittal on 19.10.2022, the second case was disposed of on
the basis of compromise on 08.07.2017, and the third case was
disposed of with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Therefore, prima facie, no
offence is made out against the present applicant, hence, he prays for
grant of bail.
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, 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 - Vivek Singh Banafar, 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
