[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mahendra Sidar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:18150
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 572 of 2026
Mahendra Sidar S/o Soukhilal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Birra, P.S.
Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)(Now- Sakti) ... Applicant
VAIBHAV
SINGH
versus
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.04.22
10:59:54 +0530
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, P.S. Jaijaipur,
Distt. Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar jaiswal, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. 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.94/2026
registered at Police Station - Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.) for the
offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2) & 331(2) of the
BNS 2023.
2. The prosecution story, in brief is that on 29.03.2026 complainant
lodged a complaint that she is residing at village Birra and her 2 sons
were out of station and she was sleeping at her house with her
grandsons and the said house was under renovation wherein they have
demolished some part of construction and because of which some part
of the construction was open and by taking benefit of the same
demolition, the applicant entered the house of the complainant and
tried to press the neck of the complainant as a result of which she
started shouting and due to previous enmity the applicant started using
filthy languages and threatened the complainant to cause death and
committed mar peet with the complainant by hand and fist and thereby
committed the offences. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a
complaint and the offences under section 296, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS
was registered against the applicant and during its investigation,
offence under section 331(2) was added and the case is still pending
investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that
there exists prior enmity between the complainant and the applicant,
and due to such animosity, the FIR has been lodged with a mala fide
intention. Initially, offences under Sections 296, 115(2), and 351(3) of
the BNS, which are bailable in nature, were registered against the
applicant; however, thereafter, the applicant received a threatening call
from an unknown person demanding money and warning that non-
bailable sections would be added if the demand was not fulfilled. In this
regard, the applicant lodged a complaint before the concerned police
authorities on 06.04.2026 along with screenshots of the call details.
Subsequent to the said complaint, a non-bailable offence under Section
331(2) of the BNS was added against the applicant, which clearly
reflects the mala fide intention of the prosecution. The applicant is a
simple villager with no previous criminal antecedents, and only on
account of prior enmity, a false and concocted case has been
fabricated against him. It is further pertinent to mention that from the
FIR itself, it is clear that at the time of its registration, only bailable
offences were invoked, and the non-bailable offence under Section
331(2) of the BNS has been added subsequently, which is not made
out against the applicant. The applicant is about 35 years of age and is
the sole earning member of his family; therefore, if the benefit of
anticipatory bail is not granted, he and his family will suffer undue
hardship and irreparable loss. The applicant is a permanent resident of
the address mentioned in the cause title, undertakes to abide by all
conditions and directions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court,
and is ready to furnish adequate surety. Grant of anticipatory bail to the
applicant would not defeat the ends of justice, and the applicant
reserves his right to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing.
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,
therefore, 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 - Mahendra Sidar, 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
