##PAGE1##

1 Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL

2026:CGHC:17868

NAFR

Digitally HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR signed by AMIT PATEL

MCRCA No. 426 of 2026 Mohit Sahu S/o Fattelal Sahu, Aged About 44 Years R/o Mathpuraina, Police

Station Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Applicant

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Purani

Basti, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, PL For Objector : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

20.04.2026

1.

This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.34/2026 registered at Police Station – Purani Basti, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118 (1), 127 (4), 296

and 351 (3) of BNS, 2023.

2.

As per the prosecution case, in brief, the complainant Shashi Verma, aged about 24 years, submitted a written report at Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.), on the basis of which Crime No.

2

34/2026 was registered against the present applicant Mohit Sahu for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 127(4), 296 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is alleged in the FIR that the complainant came in contact with the applicant in October– November 2024, when the applicant was in search of an actress for a film project at his production house situated at Bhatagaon, Raipur. It is further alleged that thereafter the applicant developed a relationship with the complainant and expressed his intention to marry her. It is further alleged that on 22.01.2026 at about 1:30 PM, the applicant abused the complainant, assaulted her with sticks, scissors and other objects, thereby causing injuries on her head, hands and other parts of

her body, and also extended threats to kill her.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, however he mentioned in para No. 4 of bail application of the applicant. He further submits that the complainant and the applicant were known to each other for a considerable period of time and were in a live-in relationship. The complainant herself has voluntarily submitted a written application along with a duly sworn affidavit before the office of the Commissioner of Police and Investigation Officer stating that she does not wish to pursue the FIR any further and has no objection if no further proceedings are carried out in the matter. It is submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose. It is further submitted that the complainant herself appeared before the learned Sessions Court and submitted an application along

3

with a duly sworn affidavit, wherein she has expressly stated that she has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant/accused. The said statement clearly indicates that the complainant does not intend to pursue the matter further against the applicant and has no grievance regarding his enlargement on bail. Therefore, he prays for grant of

anticipatory bail to the applicant.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the offences registered against the applicant are serious and therefore, it is submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the applicant

deserves to be rejected.

5.

Learned counsel for the objector does not raise any objection to the

grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

diary.

7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity