Chattisgarh High Court
Praveen Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:9849
NAFR
KUNAL
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DEWANGAN
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
MCRC No. 1897 of 2026
1 - Praveen Kumar Yadav S/o Baratu Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o
Shanti Vihar Colony, Torwa Police Station- Torwa, District Bilaspur C.G.
2 - Akhilesh Das Manikpuri S/o Shiv Kumar Manikpuri Aged About 20
Years R/o Hemu Nagar, Near Chandan Pan Thela, Police Station- Torwa,
District Bilaspur C.G.
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Torwa, District Bilaspur C.G.
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicants : Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25/02/2026
1.This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 430/2025 registered at Police Station- Torwa, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 309(6) of BNS.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.09.2025, the 2 complainant, Mehandi Hasan, was travelling by train from Howrah to Bilaspur. When the complainant reached near Hemunagar Overbridge, an unknown person allegedly assaulted him on his hand and snatched his mobile phone. The report to the above effect was lodged by the complainant at Police Station Torwa, where an FIR was registered against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the applicants along with the co-accused were arrested on 24.09.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the co-accused persons on similar allegations have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2025 in M.Cr.C. Nos. 8605/2025 and 9650/2025 and therefore the present applicants are also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 has one criminal antecedent and applicant No.2 also has one criminal antecedent under the Arms Act, however, the same does not disentitle them from grant of bail. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, the applicants have one criminal antecedents each further from the possession of the applicants, one mobile phone has been recovered. Accordingly, the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail.
3
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants since 24.09.2025 and recovery made from them and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicants have one previous criminal antecedent each and no further interrogation is required and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed.
8. Let the applicants - Praveen Kumar Yadav and Akhilesh Das Manikpuri, involved in Crime No. 430/2025 registered at Police Station- Torwa, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 309(6) of BNS, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through 4 their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberated or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith.
- S/- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal