Allowed

Bharat Prasad Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026MCRCA/1469/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to three applicants (Bharat Prasad Mishra, Lata Mishra, Suraj Mishra) apprehending arrest in a case registered under BNS Sections 115(2), 296, 333, 351(3) and 3(5). The dispute arose when the applicants objected to the complainant pruning a mango tree, leading to allegations of abuse, threats, and assault on a labourer. The court allowed the application considering the nature of allegations and circumstances, without commenting on merits, subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to all three applicants on execution of personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to standard conditions.

Bharat Prasad Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010338502026 2026:CGHC:41042

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRCA No. 1469 of 2026

¶6

1 - Bharat Prasad Mishra S/o Late Atmaram Mishra, Aged About 61 Years All R/o Village Sonsari, Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa. C.G.

¶7

2 - Lata Mishra, W/o Bharat Prasad Mishra, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Sonsari, Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa. C.G. 3 - Suraj Mishra, S/o Bharat Prasad Mishra, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Sonsari, Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa. C.G.

¶8

... Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa, C.G.

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Applicants : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate For State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, P.L.

¶13

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU ORDER ON BOARD

¶14

21.09.2026

¶15

1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 189/2026 registered at Police Station – Mulmula,

¶16

¶17

District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 296, 333, 351 (3) and 3(5) of BNS.

¶18

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Ramnath Mishra, lodged a report at Police Station Mulmula on 24.05.2026, stating that at about 08:00 AM on the same day, he was getting the branches of his mango tree pruned by a village labourer, namely, Shivkumar Yadav, in the presence of the Sarpanch. While the pruning work was being carried out, his neighbour, Bharat Mishra, along with his wife, Lata Mishra, and son, Suraj Mishra, came to the spot and questioned the complainant as to why the branches of the mango tree were being cut. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused persons entered the house of the complainant, abused him in filthy and obscene language, including abuses referring to his mother and sister, and threatened him with dire consequences and to kill him. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons assaulted the labourer, Shivkumar Yadav, who had been engaged by the complainant for pruning the mango tree, and caused injuries to him. Based on the said FIR lodged by the complainant, Crime No. 189/2026 was registered at Police Station Mulmula against Bharat Prasad Mishra, Lata Mishra and Suraj Mishra for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 333, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Hence, this anticipatory bail application.

¶19

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that when the applicants tried to cut the mango tree, which was objected to by the complainants, an oral altercation took place between the parties. During the ensuing scuffle, labourer, Shiv Kumar Yadav, fell down and sustained injuries. There are no other criminal antecedents against the applicants, except one bearing Crime No. 166 of 2026, relating to a boundary dispute between the same parties. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶21

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission and submits that, according to the medical report, it is apparent that Shiv Kumar Yadav sustained injuries on account of the assault by the applicants.

¶22

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have also lodged a report regarding the same incident before the concerned Police Station, bearing Crime No. 188 of 2026, in which offences under Sections 296(3) and (5) and Section 351(3) of the BNS have been registered against the applicants.

¶23

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

¶24

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the cause for which the alleged incident happened, as mentioned in the FIR, without commenting

¶25

¶26

on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application.

¶27

8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant No. 1 – Bharat Prasad Mishra , Applicant No. 2- Lata Mishra and applicant No. 3- Suraj Mishra on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶28

(a) they 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court.

¶29

(b) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

¶30

(c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶31

(d) the applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.

¶32

(e) he shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

( Parth Prateem Sahu ) JUDGE

¶35

Saurabh

Bharat Prasad Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Prasad Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases