Chattisgarh High Court
Aman Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13018
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1668 of 2026
Aman Dhruv S/o Pramod Dhruv Aged About 25 Years R/o Matkodwapara,
Near Trimurti Chowk, Changorbhata, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Deendayal Nagar, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Digitally signed
For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Soni with Mr. Pravesh Sahu,
Advocate
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
Date: 2026.03.18
18:21:46 +0530
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
18.03.2026
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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 258/2025 registered at Police Station - Deendayal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 119(1) & 351(3) of the BNS.
2
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 26.06.25 at about 8.00 P.M. the complainant along with his friend Yash Sarathi was gone to Changorbhata where they met with Aman Dhruv in front of electricity office Changorbhata, who asked complainant for money to drink alcohol. When he refused to give him money, Aman Dhruv@ Bittu threatened to kill and beat him with his belt due to which complainant got injuries on back, stomach, chest and head.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; it is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 16.07.2025 and is about 25 years of age, and his continued detention at such a young age, in the company of hardened criminals, will adversely affect his future career; it is also contended that the charge- sheet has already been filed on 11.09.2025 and no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required; learned counsel further submits that the applicant had a previous case in Crime No. 182/2021 under Sections 294, 506(B), 323 & 34 IPC, which has already been settled in Lok Adalat vide order dated 12.03.2022, and thus cannot be treated as a serious antecedent; it is also submitted that the FIR in the present case was registered on 26.06.2025 and the applicant was arrested after about 20 days on 16.07.2025; it is further argued that even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, no offence under Sections 119(1) and 351(3) of the BNS is made out against the applicant; it is submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his absconding, and he undertakes to furnish adequate surety and abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed 3 by this Hon'ble Court, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, she further submits that the present applicant allegedly assaulted the injured, resulting in grievous injuries, and that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the case diary, the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature; moreover, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been in custody since 16.07.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, in view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case.
7. Let the Applicant - Aman Dhruv, involved in Crime No. 258/2025 registered at Police Station - Deendayal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 119(1) & 351(3) of the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial 4 court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant 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 applicant is deliberate 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 him in accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav