RITESH CHANDRAVANSHI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010408782026 2026:CGHC:45108
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAVI
SHANKAR
MANDAVI
RAVI
SHANKAR
MANDAVI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1758 of 2026
1 - Ritesh Chandravanshi S/o Shri Dilip Chandravanshi, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village Dharampura, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
2 - Nilesh Chandravanshi S/o Shri Guniram Chandravanshi, Aged About
21 Years, R/o Darripara, Ward No. 24, Kawardha, District Kabirdham
(C.G.)
... Applicants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Lorami, District Mungeli (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause title is taken from CIS)
For Applicants : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
26/10/2026
1. Applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory

2
bail as they apprehends their arrest in connection with Crime No.
361/2026 registered at Police Station- Lorami, District Mungeli
(C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 74, 296, 115(2),
351(3), 191(2) and 331(6) of BNS.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.08.2026, the
complainant/victim lodged a written complaint at the Lormi police
station that on the intervening night of 20/21.08.2026, 04-05
people entered her house, caught her with wrong intentions,
gagged her mouth and took her to the terrace. Suddenly, during
the scuffle, her hand slipped and she shouted to her mother, when
her mother woke up, hearing her shout, her brothers came up to
the terrace and the applicants attacked her brothers with a sharp
weapon. During this, someone attacked her on the front part of
her head, due to which the victim/complainant suffered an injury
on her forehead above her left eye. After the above incident, some
people of the village came near their house, then her brothers told
the people of the village about the attack on their house by 20-25
people over the dispute of buying a trailer vehicle, beating them
and trying to take them away, in which applicant No. 01 Ritesh,
son of Dilip Chandravanshi, resident of Dharampura, applicant no.
02 Nilesh, Amit, Anuj, Arjun, Durgesh and others were involved.
On the above written complaint of the victim/complainant,
aforementioned crime was registered against the applicants and
others by Lormi police station.

3
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants have
not committed any offence as alleged and applicants were falsely
implicated in the crime in question. He contended that the father
of the applicant sold one trailer vehicle to Kamta Prasad
Kashyap/brother of the complainant and has not paid the entire
sale consideration. When the demand is made applicants were
called by the family members of the complainant and when some
dispute arose, a false report was lodged by the complainant
against the applicants. He also contended that in the incident
applicant No.2 also suffered injuries over his person, i.e. fracture
on right ankle, therefore, it can not be said that the applicants ares
involved in committing the offences as alleged against them. He
also submits that there is delay of 5 days in lodging FIR and there
is no other criminal antecedent registered against the applicants.
Hence, they may be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned
counsel for applicant and would submit that from the diary it is
apparent that the applicants entered into house of the complainant
in the night at about 01:00 a.m. (midnight) caught hold of the
victim/complainant and taken her to another room at top floor in
order to outrage her modesty and when resistance is made, some
how her face was released, she shouted, thereafter the other
family members rushed and have rescued her. He also submits
that victim/complainant suffered 2 injuries and Kishori Lal/brother
of the complainant suffered one fracture on his elbow and Roshan

4
also suffered injuries i.e. one swelling and 2 contusions on his
person, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for the benefit of
the anticipatory bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also
perused the documents enclosed along with bail application.
6. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the
case, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties,
nature of allegation, allegation levelled against the applicants,
further considering the time in which the alleged incident has
taken place, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow this
anticipatory bail application of the applicants.
7. Accordingly, this application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,
2023 stands dismissed .
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE
Ravi Mandavi