Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ
Suraj @ Lakeshwar Vaishnav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
MCRCA No. 961 of 2025
Important Points
The court denied anticipatory bail due to the seriousness of the robbery allegations, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to support claims of false implication.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Applications
Act Referred
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita: S.482
Headnote
(A) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail - Applicants apprehended arrest for offences including robbery - Allegations based on mere suspicion and implicated through memorandum statements - The court found the nature of the alleged crime serious and rejected the bail application. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Burden of proof - The applicants must demonstrate innocence to obtain anticipatory bail - The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence leading to an implicit judgment by the court on the seriousness of the accusations. (Paras 3-6)
Facts of the case:
The applicants faced anticipatory bail in connection with alleged robbery that involved the looting of a motorcycle and mobile phone from the complainant. Their claims of false implication arose from reliance on circumstantial evidence concerning a co-accused. (Para 3)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that considering the serious allegations and context of the crime, anticipatory bail could not be granted. (Paras 6-7)
Issues: The primary issue concerned the applicants' claims of false implication and rigorous examination of circumstantial evidence supporting their arrest. (Para 3)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the severity of the allegations warranted a careful approach, ultimately concluding that the applicants’ request for anticipatory bail was not substantiated. (Paras 6-7)
Result: Anticipatory bail application rejected.
(B) Burden of proof - The applicants must demonstrate innocence to obtain anticipatory bail - The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence leading to an implicit judgment by the court on the seriousness of the accusations. (Paras 3-6)
Facts of the case:
The applicants faced anticipatory bail in connection with alleged robbery that involved the looting of a motorcycle and mobile phone from the complainant. Their claims of false implication arose from reliance on circumstantial evidence concerning a co-accused. (Para 3)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that considering the serious allegations and context of the crime, anticipatory bail could not be granted. (Paras 6-7)
Issues: The primary issue concerned the applicants' claims of false implication and rigorous examination of circumstantial evidence supporting their arrest. (Para 3)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the severity of the allegations warranted a careful approach, ultimately concluding that the applicants’ request for anticipatory bail was not substantiated. (Paras 6-7)
Result: Anticipatory bail application rejected.
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari
For the Respondents: Mr. Bharat Gulbani
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari
For the Respondents: Mr. Bharat Gulbani
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for anticipatory bail under the bhartiya nyaya sanhita. (Para 1) |
Order On Board
04.07.2025
1. The applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 32/2025, registered at Police Station – Akaltara, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 310(2), 3178(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
