DHARMENDRA KUMAR SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010433332026 2026:CGHC:46769
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1839 of 2026
1 - Dharmendra Kumar Sahu S/o Devprasad Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village Nirjam, P.S. And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
2 - Rupendra Sahu S/o Ramprasad Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
Nirjam, P.S. And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants


versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh ...Respondent

MCRCA No. 1847 of 2026
Devprasad Sahu S/o Late Janik Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village
Nirjam, P.S. And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh ...Respondent
For Applicants : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Surendra Dewangan and Mr. Pranjal
Shukla, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
04/11/2026
1. Since, both the cases are arising out of same crime number
therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

2
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

3
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.
5. 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.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
7. 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.

4
8. 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:
(i) that the applicants shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when
required;
(ii) 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;
(iii) that the applicants shall not act, in any manner, which will
be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial;
(iv) 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.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
Sd/-
( Parth Prateem Sahu )
JUDGE
vaibhav