Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRCA/1657/2026 of ARMAN SIDDIQUI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, on 13 October 2026
2026:CGHC:44545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1657 of 2026 Arman Siddiqui S/o Late Md. Irfan Ahmed Warsi, Aged About 18 Years R/o Plot No.52, Street No. 3, Taj Road, Ullass Nagar, Supela Bhilai Dist. Durg Chhattisgarh-490023 ... Applicant (s) versus State Of
CGHC010387892026
2026:CGHC:44545
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1657 of 2026
Arman Siddiqui S/o Late Md. Irfan Ahmed Warsi, Aged About 18
Years R/o Plot No.52, Street No. 3, Taj Road, Ullass Nagar, Supela Bhilai Dist. Durg Chhattisgarh-490023
... Applicant (s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Jamul Thana Dist. Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant
:
Mr. Aman Guru, Advocate along with
Mr Ajay Mahakunda, Advocate
For State
:
Ms. Avelin Juneja and Mr. Amit Verma
Panel Lawyers
For Objector : Mr. Rahul Tiwari, In Person S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 14/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. 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.671 of 2026 registered at Police Station- Jamul, Thana Bhilai, District- Durg, (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 115 (2), 296, 351 (3), 140 (3), 309 (6), 3 (5) of the BNS.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.09.2026 when complainant Aniket Tiwari a Class 12 student residing in Dubey Colony, Mowa, Raipur, was returning home with his friend after working on a school project, present applicant along with other co-accused persons intercepted him near Verma Paan Palace, Mowa, in a car, abducted him, drove him toward Mana, and assaulted him there with abuses, death threats, and blows (including with a bat), causing injuries to him; they then took him towards Bhilai, where his gold chain, two gold rings, an iPhone, a Vivo phone, and Rs. 40,000 cash were robbed from him, after which he was further assaulted in Sector 03, Bhilai, with the help of additional unidentified associates. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with the aforementioned offence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the complainant Aniket himself had called the applicant through phone calls and WhatsApp messages, screen shoot of which are also placed on record along with this bail application. He also submits that as per allegation causing of grievous injury is against Roshan Soni, who allegedly assaulted the victim by means of bat. Allegation against the applicant and one another co-accused is of assault by hands and fists. No grievous injury is mentioned in MLC. Applicant is tender age of 18 years, he has no criminal antecedent. Hence, he may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. She further submits that as per allegation all the three accused persons have forcefully taken the victim in their car and further taken him to secluded place and have assaulted him in which he suffered various injuries. However, she does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation of assaulting the injured with ‘bat’ is against co-accused Roshan Soni.
5. Complainant/objector, present in the Court in person, submits that by the assault caused by applicant and another accused person victim suffered fracture of jaw, documents with regard to treatment as also photograph are enclosed along with his objection.
6. When a question is posed to learned counsel for the State with regard to criminal antecedent of applicant, if any, she submits that in the case diary, there is no mention of any criminal antecedent.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation, there is no other criminal antecedent of applicant, his tender age of 18 years, further that as per allegation, assault by means of bat is against co-accused Roshan Soni, without commenting anything on merit of the case, I am inclined to allow the present application.
9. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his 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 :- “(i) that the applicant shall remain available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required;
(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.”
Certified copy as per rules. Sd/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen