Allowed

Rajesh Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MCRCA/1504/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS. The court granted bail based on the simple nature of injuries sustained by the victim and the absence of explanation for the victim carrying a large cash sum, directing the issuance of a personal bond with surety.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the applicant on the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety in like sum and shall abide by specified conditions.

Rajesh Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CGHC010355592026 2026:CGHC:40317 NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 1504 of 2026

¶5

Rajesh Kashyap S/o Babu Lal Kashyap, Aged About 23 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Balgi Pariyojana, Thana - Bankimongra, Distt. - Korba (C.G.)

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

Digitally signed by ALFIZA ALFIZA BAIG Date: BAIG 2026.09.16 15:50:46 +0530

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Bankimongra, Distt. Korba (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For State : Dr. Surendra Dewangan, Panel Lawyer

¶12

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board

¶13

15/09/2026

¶14

Applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNSS ”) for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 122/2026 registered at Police

¶15

-2-

¶16

Station- Bankimongara, District- Korba (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 140(3), 310(2), 311, 115(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶17

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.06.2026 when Arvind Rathore along with Sahil Nirmalkar (complainant) were sitting inside the fortuner car, some person came in Bolero vehicle and were continuously blowing the horn, upon which injured Arvind Rathore asked his friend to get his vehicle on the side of road and thereafter, the Bolero vehicle ran over his friend Chandramani Ratre @ Dadu Bahiya. Arvind Rathore and Sahil Nirmalkar sent the Chandramani Rathre in their Fortuner car and followed Bolero car by scooty for a long distance. At one place Bolero car stopped and some person came out and started assaulting Arvind Rathore. They took him in Bolero car and again assaulted him, snatched gold chain, gold ring and a cash of Rs. 1 Lakh and left him near Balgi. This incident was reported by the complainant to the concerned Police Station. Based upon the aforementioned, crime was registered in which applicant is apprehending his arrest.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned crime, he has not committed any offence. He further submits that there is an allegation that when Arvind Rathore (injured) was taken by the applicant and other persons in Bolero vehicle they have

¶19

-3-

¶20

snatched gold chain, gold ring, two mobile phones and a sum of Rs. 1 Lakhs. However, there is no mention in the statement of the injured as to for what purpose he has kept such a huge amount with him that too in night at about 1:30 am. He also submits that only to implicate the present applicant in a severe case, false allegation has been leveled.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. He further submits that specific allegation has been made against applicant and name of applicant has came in the memorandum statement of Rajendra Sahu and Kapil Kumar Sarthi. He submits that after the incident is reported three persons out of the total 10 were arrested and rest are still absconding.

¶22

Upon putting specific query to learned counsel for the State as to whether any specific submission is made by injured Arvind Rathre about the reason for which he was keeping along with him a sum of Rs. 1 Lakhs. He submits that with regard to this, there is no such statement. Upon putting another specific query with regard to nature of injury suffered by Arvind Rathre, he states that according to the documents available in the case diary, the nature of injury suffered by Arvind Rathre are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the State also pointed out that there are two criminal antecedents of the co- accused Vinod Kashyap one is under Section 69 of BNS and another is under Section

¶23

-4-

¶24

281 of BNS.

¶25

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

¶26

Considering the nature of allegations, submission made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of injuries suffered by Arvind Rathore as stated by learned counsel for the State to be simple in nature and also considering the fact that no specific submission/averment is made by Arvind Rathore as to what purpose he was keeping a sum of Rs. 1 Lakhs with him at night around 1:30 am, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the present application.

¶27

Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting her on executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :-

¶28

“(i) that the applicant shall remain available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶29

(ii) the applicant 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

¶30

-5-

¶31

him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶32

Certified copy as per rules.

¶33

-/-Sd/-/-/---/-/-

¶34

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶35

Alfiza

Rajesh Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kashyap 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