VISHWAJEET ANANT vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
- Court
- Chhattisgarh High Court
1
CGHC010286132026 2026:CGHC:38929
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
SAIFAN
KHAN
SAIFAN
KHAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1176 of 2026
Nagendra Rai, S/o Mr. Chandrika Rai, aged about 61 years, R/o Lal
Khadan, Police Station, Torwa, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
--- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Bilaspur District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant : Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Yashkarn Singh, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
MCRC No. 7032 of 2026
Vishwajeet Anant, S/o Late Balram Anant, aged about 29 years, R/o
Village Mohtara P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G.
--- Applicant
(In Jail)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Masturi
District Bilaspur C.G.
--- Respondent
[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
(Order on Board)
02.09.2026
1. Since both the applications are arising out of a common crime
number, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both
these applications are clubbed together, heard together and being
disposed of by this common order.
2. MCRCA-1176-2026 has been preferred by accused/applicant-
Nagendra Rai under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.736/2026, registered at
Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG) for offences under Section
109, 111, 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS and also under Section 25 & 27 of the
Indian Arms Act, 1959. Whereas, MCRC-7032-2026 has been preferred
by accused/applicant- Vishwajeet Anant under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 for grant of regular bail in connection with same crime and
offences mentioned above.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 28/10/2025 at about 6 PM,
complainant Nitesh Singh allegedly informed the Masturi Police Station
via phone call that some unknown persons have opened indiscriminate
fire outside the office of Tamesh Singh, situated at Masturi, with the
intention of killing Tamesh Singh as well as other people present
therein.
4. It is also the case of the prosecution that the complainant Nitesh
Singh along with his maternal uncle Tamesh Singh and 9-10 other
persons were sitting outside the office of Tamesh Singh when two
3
unknown assailants, standing at a distance of about 10-15 feet, opened
indiscriminate fire and two other persons were waiting on motorcycles
to facilitate the escape of the assailants after the incident. As a result of
the firing, Dhanendra Singh @ Raju Singh sustained gunshot injuries
on his left leg and left hand and Chandrakant Singh sustained a
gunshot injury on his right palm and both the injured persons were
admitted to the Hospital and remained under treatment for three days.
Thereafter, upon investigation, during the Test Identification Parade
(TIP), Arman @ Balamjeet Anant and Chahat @ Vikramjeet were
identified to be assailants by the complainant. Further on the basis of
memorandum statements of Arman @ Balamjeet Anant and Chahat @
Vikramjeet, it was alleged that Akbar Khan (A-1) along with Nagendra
Rai and Tikeshwar Singh had held a meeting with Vishwajeet Anant
and offered him a contract (supari) of Rs. 2,00,000/- (out of which
Rs.1,49,000/- paid in the account and Rs.51,000/- was paid in cash) to
eliminate Nitesh Singh, Chandrakant Singh, Raju Singh, Tamesh Singh
and others. Applicant- Nagendra Rai provided weapon of the offences
to other co-accused persons. Furthermore, as per the memorandum
statement of Vishwajeet Anant, Akbar Khan (A-1) had met him about six
days prior to the incident at Anna Dosa (restaurant) and instructed him
to execute the alleged plan and as per the memorandum statement of
Arman @ Balamjeet, a meeting was held two days prior to the incident
at Devesh Suman @ Nikku’s Dhaba (A-2) during which weapons were
distributed among the assailants. Upon completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons.
4
5. Mr. Amrito Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for applicant-
Nagendra Rai in MCRCA-1176-2026 would submit that there is no
evidence on record to connect the applicant- Nagendra in the crime in
question and just because he is a member of a political party, he has
been falsely roped in the present case. The only allegation on the
applicant is that he has provided weapon to the co-accused persons,
but there is no evidence/material in this regard. Even, there is no
evidence on record to show that the applicant has made any deal with
co-accused Vishwajeet Anant and merely because he used to talk or
having connection with co-accused- Takeshwar Patle, he cannot be
implicated in the present case. So far his criminal antecedents are
concerned, out of other 08 cases, in 04 cases he has already been
acquitted; 01 case is istighasa under Section 107/166 of CrPC ; in 01
case he has not been charge-sheeted and 02 cases are relating to
tribal offences. As such, it is prayed that applicant- Nagendra Rai be
enlarged on anticipatory bail.
6. Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for applicant-
Vishwajeet Anant in MCRC-7032-2026 would submits that the case of
applicant- Vishwajeet Anant is identical to co-accused persons, namely,
Akbar Khan, Mohd. Mustkim @ Nafis and Mohd. Matin, who have been
enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2026,
passed in MCRC-1603-2026, MCRC-2344-2026 & MCRC-1678-2026.
He also submits that only two mobile phones of his own and Rs.5,000/-
cash have been recovered from the applicant. There is no evidence
available on record to show that applicant- Vishwajeet has received or
5
obtained money from any of the co-accused. Even, there is no call
record showing conversation between the present applicant and other
co-accused persons, including the payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. So far
criminal antecedents are concerned, out of other 06 cases, he has
already been acquitted in most of the case and only in 01 case having
Crime No.31/2025, registered at Police Station Masturi, District
Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 191(2), 296, 351(2), 115(2) of the
BNS is pending consideration. The applicant is in custody from
29.10.2025 and investigation has been completed and the charge-
sheet has already been filed, comprising about 459 pages and citing as
many as 73 prosecution witnesses, and therefore the conclusion of the
trial is likely to take considerable time, as such, it is prayed that
applicant- Vishwajeet Anant be enlarged on bail.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail
applications and submits that the material collected during the course
of investigation prima facie establishes the involvement of the
applicants in the alleged offence. Learned State counsel submits that
applicant- Vishwajeet Anant is land conspirator, whereas applicant-
Nagendra has provided weapon of the offences to other co-accused
persons and he is also in regular touch with co-accused Takeshwar
Patle and for which CDR is also available on record to connect him with
the offences in question and even he is absconding for last 10 months
and other 08 cases of serious nature are also pending against him and,
therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. It is contended
that the applicants have been implicated on the basis of the
6
memorandum statements of the co-accused, the call detail records, the
recoveries effected during investigation and the statements of the
prosecution witnesses. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the
allegations, it is submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out and
the applications deserve to be rejected.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with
utmost circumspection.
MCRCA-1176-2026:
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record and considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case and further considering the gravity of the charges levelled against
applicant- Nagendra Rai that he supplied weapon of the offences to
other co-accused persons and he remained absconded for more than
10 months and did not cooperate in the investigation and even he is
having criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail
to applicant- Nagendra Rai and his application is liable to be and is
hereby rejected .
MCRC-7032-2026:
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record and considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case and further considering the gravity of the charges levelled against
applicant- Vishwajeet Anant that he obtained Rs.1,00,000/- from other
co-accused persons to eliminate Nitesh Singh, Chandrakant Singh,
7
Raju Singh, Tamesh Singh and others and further considering the fact
that the case of applicant- Vishwajeet Anant is identical/similarly
situated qua co-accused persons, namely, Akbar Khan, Mohd. Mustkim
@ Nafis and Mohd. Matin, who have been enlarged on regular bail by
this Court vide order dated 02.07.2026, passed in MCRC-1603-2026,
MCRC-2344-2026 & MCRC-1678-2026 and he is in jail since
29.10.2025 and investigation has been completed and the charge-
sheet has already been filed, comprising about 459 pages and citing as
many as 73 prosecution witnesses, and therefore the conclusion of the
trial is likely to take considerable time and further out of other 06
criminal cases, in most of the cases he has been acquitted and only 02
cases are pending, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant-
Vishwajeet Anant on regular bail.
11. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant- Vishwajeet Anant be
released on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 736/2025
registered at Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), upon
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a specific undertaking that
while on bail, he will not commit any offence, otherwise bail
granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co-
operate the prosecution during trial.
(ii) That, the accused/applicant shall make himself available for
interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and
8
when required and the accused/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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer.
(iii) That, the accused/applicant shall not act, in any manner,
which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(vi) in the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, it
shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail in
accordance with law.
12. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined
only to the adjudication of the present bail applications and shall not be
construed as an expression on the merits of the case, which shall be
decided independently by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence
led before it.
13. Consequently, MCRCA-1176-2026 filed by applicant- Nagendra
Rai for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby rejected , whereas MCRC-
7032-2026 filed by applicant- Vishwajeet Anant for grant of regular bail
is hereby allowed .
sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
s@if