AVINASH v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Outpost

: Shri Lalit Jangde, Advocate. : Shri Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/12/2025

1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.835/2025, registered at Police Station – Outpost Manikpur, PS Kotwali District – Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 308 (2) BNS.

2. The prosecution case in brief, is that, complainant namely 2 Shatruhan Singh resident of Purani Basti submitted a written complaint before the police station Kotwali, Korba for lodging FIR against the applicant alleging that applicant had taken Rs.2,20,000/- from the complainant from 18.10.2025 to

25.10.2025, for revenue map demarcation. The applicant is extorting Rs.20,000/- per dismil of land, and if not given, then the applicant would indulge the complainant in false atrocities case. The police registered FIR on 14.11.2025 and the matter is under investigation.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that earlier on 07.11.2025, applicant submitted a complaint against the complainant namely Shatruhan and his 15- 20 companions before the Police Outpost Manikpur SP Korba that the complainant and his 15-20 companions are threatening the applicant and his family. Copy of police complaint dated

07.11.2025 has been filed with this petition as Annexure A/3. Learned counsel further submits that the present applicant being an Advocate by profession carries a public fame and there are several political influential persons who have enmity with the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that complainant is a real estate mafia and is indulged in the practice of capturing several government and private lands and against which they extort money from the people. Learned counsel for the 3 applicant further submits that complainant blackmailed the applicant many times because the applicant raises voice against the complainant under the banner of Chhattisgaria Kranti Sena, Korba. The complainant was trying to capture the land of Manikpur and the applicant was raising public voice against the complainant, therefore, the complainant lodged FIR against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that against the present applicant, Crime No.285/2007 for the offence under Section 107, 116 (3) of Cr.P.C. has been disposed of, Crime No.601/2024 for the offence under Section 13 of Gambling Act has been disposed off, Crime No.455/2015 for the offence Under Section 13 Gambling Act has been disposed of, Crime No.437/2018 for the offence under Section 147, 186, 332, 294, 506, 504, 353 IPC is pending, Crime No.1083/2019 for the offence under Section 107, 116(3) Cr.P.C has been disposed of, Crime No.21/2021 for the offence under Section 110 Cr.P.C has been disposed of, Crime No.275/2022 for the offence under Section 294, 506 IPC is pending, Crime No.06/2022 for the offence under Section 110 Cr.P.C has been disposed of and in Crime No.256/2024 for the offence under Section 294 IPC applicant has been acquitted. Learned counsel in regard to the previous criminal antecedents of the applicant submits that majority of those cases have been disposed of while the only pending cases which are two in number are old cases. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail 4 application and submits that the very fact that there are nine previous criminal antecedents of the present applicant cannot be overlooked merely because majority of them has been disposed of. Learned State counsel submits that complainant has lodged an FIR against the applicant stating that applicant for the purposes of revenue map demarcation took Rs.1,00,000/- on

18.10.2025 and on 23.10.2025, Rs.70,000/-, on 25.10.2025, Rs.50,000/-, in total, Rs.2,20,000/- from the complainant and applicant is further asking Rs.20,000/- per dismil of land and thereby, threatening the complainant that applicant will rope the complainant in false atrocities case. Therefore, considering the backdrop, he is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused material available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of counsel for the parties, nature of allegation made against the present applicant and particularly the fact that the applicant is an Advocate by profession and he is alleged to have taken, in total, Rs.2,20,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of revenue map demarcation for the alleged mapping, and further there are nine previous criminal antecedents of the applicant which are registered as Crime No.285/2007 for the offence under Section 107, 116 (3) of Cr.P.C., Crime No.601/2024 5 for the offence under Section 13 of Gambling Act, Crime No.455/2015 for the offence Under Section 13 Gambling Act, Crime No.437/2018 for the offence under Section 147, 186, 332, 294, 506, 504, 353 IPC, Crime No.1083/2019 for the offence under Section 107, 116(3) Cr.P.C, Crime No.21/2021 for the offence under Section 110 Cr.P.C, Crime No.275/2022 for the offence under Section 294, 506 IPC, Crime No.06/2022 for the offence under Section 110 Cr.P.C and Crime No.256/2024 for the offence under Section 294 IPC, which goes to show that he is habitual offender and hence, this Court is of the view that it will be appropriate to reject the anticipatory bail of the present applicant.

7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of applicant - Dilip Miri involved in Crime No.835/2025, registered at Police Station – Outpost Manikpur, PS Kotwali District – Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 308 (2) BNS, is rejected. ((Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sd/-

8. Avinash