Uma Shankar @ Tinku Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1913 Chatt

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1913 Chatt
Judgement Date : 21 April, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Uma Shankar @ Tinku Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                              1




                                                          2026:CGHC:18139
           Digitally
           signed by
           ARPAN
ARPAN      SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:                                                          NAFR
           2026.04.22
           20:09:55
           +0530


                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                    MCRCA No. 591 of 2026
            1 - Uma Shankar @ Tinku Verma S/o Mansingh Verma Aged About
            46 Years R/o Village- Boriyakala, Thana Mujgehan, Distt.- Raipur
            (C.G.).
            2 - Sanjay Verma S/o Mansingh Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o
            Village- Boriyakala, Thana Mujgehan, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.).
            3 - Dharmendra Verma S/o Mansingh Verma Aged About 51 Years
            R/o Village- Boriyakala, Thana Mujgehan, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.).
            4 - Upendra Verma S/o Lt. Kanhaiya Lal Verma Aged About 57
            Years R/o Village- Boriyakala, Thana Mujgehan, Distt.- Raipur
            (C.G.).
            5 - Tarun Verma S/o Mahendra Verma Aged About 39 Years R/o
            Village- Boriyakala, Thana Mujgehan, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.).
            6 - Gulab Chand Verma S/o Samaru Ram Verma Aged About 58
            Years R/o Village- Boriyakala, Thana Mujgehan, Distt.- Raipur
            (C.G.)
                                                                 ... Applicants

                                           versus

            1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station- Kharora,
            Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)
                                                               ... Respondent

For Applicants : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri 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.76/2026 registered at Police

Station -Kharora, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) for the offences

punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5), 351(2), 118(1)

and 333 of BNS.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the prosecution case,

an FIR was lodged by the complainant, Himanshu Verma,

stating that on 05.02.2026 at about 9:30 PM, a marriage

procession consisting of Tinku Verma, a relative of Medini

Verma from Village Boria, Raipur, along with his family

members, had come to the house of Bhanu Verma in Village

Ganiyari. It is alleged that after the welcome of the marriage

procession, while the procession was proceeding, an

altercation arose amongst certain members of the wedding

party. At that time, the complainant's nephew, Rakesh Verma,

was present at the spot, whereupon his father, Danendra

Verma, took him towards the house. The prosecution alleges

that members of the wedding party, under a mistaken belief,

followed them, started abusing and extending threats to kill,

and assaulted Danendra Verma and the complainant with

hands and fists. It is further alleged that thereafter Tinku

Verma and other members of his family joined the incident

and assaulted the complainant's father, Tok Singh, and elder

brother, Hemu Verma. When Aditya Verma and Lekh Ram

Sahu intervened to pacify the matter, they were also

assaulted. As a result of the incident, the complainant

sustained injuries on his chest, neck, and back, while Aditya

Verma and Lekh Ram Sahu sustained injuries on their

heads. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR has been

registered against the present applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the

applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It is

contended that a counter FIR dated 07.02.2026 in Crime No.

80/2026 has been lodged by the applicants' side, indicating

that the complainant was the aggressor and that the incident

occurred due to a sudden quarrel during the marriage

procession. It is further submitted that the complainant and

his companions assaulted the applicants and caused damage

to vehicles engaged in the procession. It is also pointed out

that applicant No. 2, Sanjay Verma, has recently undergone a

hernia operation and is under medical treatment, and his

arrest may adversely affect his health. It is further contended

that the complaint has been lodged due to personal enmity

arising out of a local election dispute. Lastly, it is submitted

that the applicants are permanent residents, there is no

likelihood of their absconding or tampering with evidence,

and they are ready to cooperate with the investigation and

abide by all conditions imposed by this Court, hence, the

present applicants are also entitled to be released on

anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application

and submits that the applicants are specifically named in the

FIR and have actively participated in the assault, causing

multiple injuries to the complainant and other persons, which

is supported by medical evidence. It is further contended that

although most of the offences are bailable, the offence under

Section 333 of the BNS is non-bailable, and therefore,

considering the gravity of the allegations, the applicants are

not entitled to grant anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

materials available on record.

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly that the incident appears to have arisen out of a

sudden quarrel during a marriage procession that a counter

FIR has also been lodged indicating a case and counter-case

that the applicants are permanent residents with no

likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence and

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this

Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of

the applicants are not warranted at this stage, therefore, I am

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed

that in the event of arrest of the applicant No.1- Uma

Shankar, applicant No.2 - Sanjay Verma, applicant No.3-

Dharmendra Verma, applicant No.4- Upendra Verma,

applicant No.5- Tarun Verma, applicant No.6- Gulab Chand

Verma, on executing a personal bond and one surety each

respectively 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.

(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 their 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.