01Facts
The applications arose from Crime No. 225/2026, registered at Police Station Mungeli under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 296, 351(3) and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
¶ 2–3The prosecution alleged that, following an altercation near a village well, the applicants and others abused and threatened the complainant and assaulted him with a wooden spade handle, causing injuries.
¶ 2–3The applicants denied the allegations and relied, among other matters, on a counter-report lodged by their side concerning the same incident, anticipatory bail granted to co-accused persons, and their lack of criminal antecedents.
¶ 4The State opposed the applications but confirmed that the applicants’ party had also lodged a report arising from the incident.
¶ 5The applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
¶ 202Issues
i.Whether the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 225/2026.
¶ 2, 7ii.If anticipatory bail is warranted, what conditions should govern their release in the event of arrest.
¶ 803Law Applied
The applications were made under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for anticipatory bail.
¶ 2The alleged offences were under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 296, 351(3) and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
¶ 2The order cites no precedent or further legal test; it records that the Court considered the facts and circumstances, the nature of the allegations, and the parties’ submissions in deciding whether to grant relief.
¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115Section 191Section 296Section 351Section 117
Arms Act, 1959 Section 25Section 27
04Reasoning
The Court considered the competing submissions, including the applicants’ reliance on the counter-report concerning the same incident, the bail granted to co-accused persons, and the applicants’ lack of criminal antecedents, alongside the State’s opposition and its confirmation that a report had been lodged by the applicants’ party.
¶ 4–5Having considered the circumstances and the nature of the allegations, the Court concluded, without commenting on the merits, that anticipatory bail was appropriate.
¶ 705Holding
The Court allowed both applications.
¶ 8It directed that, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 225/2026, each applicant be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
¶ 8The applicants must remain available for interrogation when required, refrain from influencing persons acquainted with the case or prejudicing a fair and expeditious trial.
¶ 8Original Court PDF
DHARMENDRA KUMAR SAHUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
