Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRCA/1379/2026 of SMT. CHANDRAKALI BANJARE Vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 9 September 2026
2026:CGHC:39750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1379 of 2026 1 - Smt. Chandrakali Banjare W/o. Shri Santosh Banjare Aged About 49 Years R/o. - Village - Bhainsbod, Thana - Dadhi, District - Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Santosh Banjare S/o. Shri Maniram Banjare Aged About 56
CGHC010326842026
2026:CGHC:39750
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1379 of 2026
1 - Smt. Chandrakali Banjare W/o. Shri Santosh Banjare Aged About 49
Years R/o. - Village - Bhainsbod, Thana - Dadhi, District - Bemetara (C.G.)
2 - Santosh Banjare S/o. Shri Maniram Banjare Aged About 56 Years R/o. - Village - Bhainsbod, Thana - Dadhi, District - Bemetara (C.G.)
3 - Chetan Banjare S/o- Shri Santosh Banjare Aged About 33 Years R/o. - Village - Bhainsbod, Thana - Dadhi, District - Bemetara (C.G.)
4 - Kabir Banjare S/o- Shri Santosh Banjare Aged About 31 Years R/o. - Village - Bhainsbod, Thana - Dadhi, District - Bemetara (C.G.)
5 - Tijau Banjare S/o- Shri Santosh Banjare Aged About 28 Years R/o. - Village - Bhainsbod, Thana - Dadhi, District - Bemetara (C.G.)
... Applicants
versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Lalpur, District – Mungeli (C.G.)
---- Non-applicant
For Applicants
:
Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State :
Ms. Avelin Juneja Gambhir, Panel Lawyer.
For Objector
:
Ms. Raveena, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shiv Kumar Banjare, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice
Parth Prateem S
ahu
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. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 102/2026 registered at Police Station – Lalpur, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 4 of the Protection of RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that subsequent developments brought on record, by way of the affidavit of the Investigating Officer dated 31.8.2026, indicates that after completion of investigation of instant crime, charge sheet has been filed only against caccused Sanjay Banjare and not against present applicants. Hence, now nothing remains to be adjudicated in this anticipatory bail application.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not dispute the above submission of learned counsel for applicants.
4. Complainant/father of the victim is present before this Court through video conferencing from the help desk of District Legal Services Authority.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Perusal of affidavit dated 31.8.2026 of Shri Sundar Lal Gorle, Sub- Inspector, Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli reveals that after completion of investigating in crime in question, charge-sheet has been filed only against accused Sanjay Banjare (Juvenile), and not against present applicants and now their custodial interrogation by the police is not required. Para-5 and 6 of the affidavit reads thus:- “5. That, the investigating officer has completed the investigation in Crime No. 102/2026 and has filed the chargesheet before the concerned Court on 22.08.2026 against accused person namely Sanjay Banjare. The I.O. has not filed the chargesheet against the applicants herein and hence no custodial interrogation is required against the applicants.
6. That, in view of the filing of the chargesheet and the consequent completion of investigation qua the applicants no useful purpose would be served by arresting the applicants at this stage and there is no requirement whatsoever for their custodial interrogation for the purpose of collection of any further evidence.”
7. In view of above subsequent developments that took place during pendency of this anticipatory bail application, which is brought on record by way of affidavit of Investigating Officer dated 31.8.2026, this Court is of the considered view that nothing survives to be adjudicated in this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Rajshekhar