BRIJESH YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010332222026 2026:CGHC:38364
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No.1414 of 2026
1 - Brijesh Yadav S/o Sukhu Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village - Shankargarh, Police Station And Tahsil - Shankargarh,
District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.)
2 - Rupesh Yadav S/o Janki Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village Lau, Police Station And Tahsil - Rajpur, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj, (C.G.)
3 - Ashish Yadav S/o Sanjeev Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o
Village - Shankargarh, Police Station And Tahsil - Shankargarh,
District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.)
4 - Abhishek Yadav S/o Sanjeev Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o
Village - Shankargarh, Police Station And Tahsil - Shankargarh,
District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) ... Applicants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Shankargarh, District
SISTLA Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant
NEELIMA
VISHNU
PRIYA
Digitally signed by
SISTLA NEELIMA
VISHNU PRIYA
Date: 2026.09.01
11:35:58 +0530

2
For Applicants : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, PL.
For Objector : Mr. Pawas Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
31.08.2026
1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by
the Applicants who are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Crime No.81/2026 registered at Police
Station – Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj
(C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296,
115(2), 351(2), 191(2), 332(c), 304(2) and 331(2) of BNS.
2.
As per the case of prosecution, there is a dispute between the
parties in respect of land bearing Khasra No.1077/3,
admeasuring 1.011 hectares, situated at Village Dohna,
Police Station Shankargarh. It is alleged that on 07.07.2026,
the Applicant and other co-accused persons, in furtherance of
their common object, entered the premises of the
complainant, assaulted and abused him and other members
of his family and extended threats. Based on these
allegations, the offences as mentioned above have been

3
registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this
application.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the
Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in
the present case on account of a longstanding land dispute
and existing enmity between the parties. It is submitted that
the father of Applicant No.1 had lodged a written complaint
against the complainant and his family members on
05.07.2026 alleging that they had forcibly broken the
boundary wall of the disputed land and entered upon the
same with a tractor, whereas the present FIR was lodged by
the complainant only thereafter on 07.07.2026, indicating that
it is a counterblast to the said complaint. He further submits
that no injury has been caused to the complainant or any
member of his family and that the dispute between the parties
is essentially civil in nature. It is further submitted that the
Applicants’ family has been in possession of the disputed
land for several years pursuant to a registered sale deed and
the revenue proceedings initiated by the complainant’s side
were also decided in favour of the Applicants’ family by the
Commissioner, Surguja Division, vide order dated
12.05.2026. It is lastly submitted that the trial is likely to take
considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the Applicants

4
may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel and learned Counsel for
the Objector oppose the bail application. Learned State
Counsel submits that the case diary is not available, there are
allegations against the Applicants of assaulting the
complainant and other persons with sticks and wooden clubs,
and there are criminal antecedents against some of the
Applicants.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel
for the parties, the nature of allegations, the fact that the
dispute between the parties arises out of a longstanding land
dispute, the father of Applicant No.1 had lodged a complaint
against the complainant’s side prior to registration of the
present FIR, no injury has been caused to the complainant or
any member of his family and the revenue proceedings
concerning the disputed land have been decided in favour of
the Applicants’ family by the Commissioner, Surguja Division,
vide order dated 12.05.2026 and further considering that the
trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion,
without further commenting on the merits of the case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to extend
the benefit of anticipatory bail to the Applicants.

5
6. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed
that in the event of arrest of the Applicants – Brijesh Yadav,
Rupesh Yadav, Ashish Yadav and Abhishek Yadav on
executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to
the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released
on bail on the following conditions:-
(a) The Applicant/s 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/them from disclosing such
fact to the Court.
(b) The Applicant/s shall not act in any manner
which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious
trial.
(c) The Applicant/s shall appear before the trial
Court on each and every date given to
him/her/them by the said Court till disposal of the
trial.
(d)The Applicant/s and the surety shall submit a
copy of his/her/their adhaar card along with a
colored postcard full size photo having printed the
adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by
the trial Court.
(e)The Applicant/s shall not involve
himself/herself/themselves in any offence of
similar nature in future.

Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Priya