Mayank Kumar Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1078 Chatt

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1078 Chatt
Judgement Date : 27 March, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

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

(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

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

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.

(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.