AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since, both the cases are arising out of same crime number therefore, they are being decided by this common order.
Applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail as they apprehends their arrest in connection with Crime No. 225/2026 registered at Police Station - Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 296, 351(3) & 117(2) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.07.2026, an altercation took place between the complainant and Devprasad Sahu near the Government Well of Village Nirjam. It is alleged that thereafter, the present applicant, Dharmendra, along with co-accused Rupendri Sahu, Jeetram Sahu and Narendra Sahu, chased the complainant, compelling him to take shelter in the house of his uncle, Manoj Singh Parihar. Subsequently, the complainant, along with his grandfather, Keshav Singh Parihar, went to the house of the Sarpanch, Jitendra Sahu, to enquire about the incident. It is alleged that the present applicant, along with other co-accused persons, abused and threatened them and caught hold of the complainant's grandfather. Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly assaulted the complainant with the wooden handle of a spade (fawda), causing injuries to his forehead, left shoulder and back. The incident is stated to have been witnessed by the complainant's grandfather and other villagers.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submits that applicant Devprasad Sahu has lodged a report at the concerned Police Station regarding the same incident, wherein specific allegations have been made against the complainant, Vansh Raj Parihar, that he assaulted Devprasad Sahu and other persons. It is submitted that the allegations of assault made against the applicants have been levelled only to counter and overcome the report lodged by Devprasad Sahu and his family members. He further submits that co-accused Jitendra Sahu and Kanti Sahu have been enlarged on anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 1699/2026 and MCRCA No. 1829/2026, vide orders dated 13.10.2026 and 02.11.2026, respectively. Two other co-accused persons, namely Harikrishna and Yogeshwar Sahu, have also been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court. The applicants have no criminal antecedents.
Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that, from the contents of the FIR, it is apparent that after the altercation, applicant Devprasad Sahu started assaulting the complainant with hands and fists, and thereafter, other persons also came and assaulted him, as per the allegations. However, upon a specific query being put to learned State counsel, he also submits that, arising out of the same incident, the applicants' party has also lodged a report against the complainant's party.
I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow these anticipatory bail applications.
Accordingly, applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants in connection with the crime in question (225/2026), they shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting them on their executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer. Applicants shall also abide by the following conditions:
that the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when required;
that the applicants 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
that the applicants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial;
that the applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.