Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRCA/1462/2026 of LAXMAN VERMA @ LAXMAN PRASAD SONI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 9 September 2026
2026:CGHC:39744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1462 of 2026 Laxman Verma @ Laxman Prasad Soni S/o Shri Panchanand Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Japnilganj, Baleshwar Ji Road, Baliya City, Distt. Baliya, U.P. ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through
CGHC010344062026
2026:CGHC:39744
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1462 of 2026
Laxman Verma @ Laxman Prasad Soni S/o Shri Panchanand Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Japnilganj, Baleshwar Ji Road, Baliya City, Distt. Baliya, U.P.
... Applicant (s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant
:
Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For State
:
Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 10/09/2026
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.0234 of 2026 registered at Police
Station- City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (CG) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318 (4), 62, 112 of BNS.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.04.2026, complainant Jalesh Kumar Aahire, Manager of Leela Jewellers, lodged a complaint in the concerned police station stating that co-accused Poonam Verma had attempted to exchange fake gold ornaments, namely, one pair of tops and one ring, for genuine gold ornaments at their shop situated at Telipara, Bilaspur. On the basis of the said complaint, the aforementioned crime was registered. During course of investigation, the memorandum statement of co-accused Poonam Verma was recorded, wherein name of the present applicant also surfaced as one of the persons involved in commission of the offence. Consequently, the present applicant was also implicated as an accused in connection with the commission of aforementioned offence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has not committed the offence as alleged against him. It is further submitted that initially the applicant was not named in the FIR and has been implicated in the crime in question only on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Sanjay Verma, wherein it has been stated that the fake gold ornaments were purchased from the present applicant. He further submits that co-accused Sanjay Verma has been granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. Hence, he may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the applicant is directly involved in the commission of offence, as he had handed over the gold-like ornaments to co- accused Poonam Verma. Applicant is resident of Uttar Pradesh, hence, he may not be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the applicant, I am not inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to applicant.
7. The application is accordingly rejected. Sd/-/--/---/-/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen