Jeet Bharti vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1229 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Jeet Bharti vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                 1




                                                                2026:CGHC:15385
                                                                              NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                    MCRC No. 2987 of 2026

            Jeet Bharti S/o Gopichand Bharti Aged About 21 Years Resident Of
            Village- Chadmudiya P.S. Kurud, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,
                                                                          ... Applicant
                                               versus
            State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station
            Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.)
                                                                    ... Non-Applicant
            For Applicant             : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate
            For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer

                            Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                                        Order on Board
            02.04.2026

            1.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for

grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in

connection with Crime No. 19/2026 registered at Police Station-

Kurud, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under

Sections 126(2), 309(6) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged

a report at the concerned police station alleging, inter alia, that on RAHUL DEWANGAN

Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

the date of the incident a minor dispute arose between the applicant

and the complainant, following which the applicant assaulted the

complainant with a danda, used filthy language, and forcibly

snatched the complainant's mobile phone. As a result of the said

incident, the complainant sustained simple injuries. On the basis of

the aforesaid complaint, the police registered an offence against the

applicant under Sections 126(2), 309(6), and 238 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Hence, the present bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He

further submits that at the time of the alleged incident only a minor

dispute had arisen between the applicant and the complainant, and

the applicant neither assaulted the complainant nor looted any

article, as falsely alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted

that none of the essential ingredients of the offences punishable

under Sections 126(2), 309(6), and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 are made out against the applicant. It is also

contended that the prosecution has failed to collect sufficient

material against the applicant and that the police did not conduct a

proper investigation prior to registration of the FIR, and merely on

the basis of suspicion the applicant has been falsely implicated and

arrested. He further submits that the prosecution story is concocted

and based on false and fabricated allegations without any cogent

evidence. He also submits that no incriminating article has been

seized from the possession of the applicant, except an amount of

Rs.500/-, which does not substantiate the allegation of loot, and that

the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of a

memorandum statement. It is thus submitted that, looking to the

material available on record, no prima facie case is made out

against the present applicant. He further submits that the present

applicant has no any previous criminal antecedents, the charge-

sheet has been filed before the competent Court, he is in jail since

21.01.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its

conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail

application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted

before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant

is involved in the commission of the alleged offences and the

allegations against him are serious in nature. It is further submitted

that there is sufficient material available on record against the

applicant, which clearly establishes his involvement in the incident.

She also pointed out that the applicant has one criminal antecedent

of the year 2025 in the similar nature, and therefore, considering the

nature of allegations and his past conduct, the applicant is not

entitled to the benefit of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of

allegations, and the submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties, this Court is of the view that the dispute between the parties

appears to have arisen out of a minor altercation and the injuries

sustained by the complainant are simple in nature. It is also noticed

that no substantial incriminating material has been seized from the

possession of the applicant except an amount of Rs.500/-, and the

case rests primarily on the memorandum statement. Though the

learned State Counsel has opposed the bail and pointed out one

criminal antecedent of the year 2025, but also considering the fact

that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2026, the charge-

sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and the

conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this

Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled

to be released on regular bail in this case.

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the

applicant - Jeet Bharti, involved in Crime No. 19/2026 registered at

Police Station- Kurud, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence

punishable under Sections 126(2), 309(6) and 238 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a

personal bond with two 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 she 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 court on each date fixed, either personally or

through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, 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 her in accordance with law.

8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial

Court concerned for necessary information and compliance

forthwith

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Rahul Dewangan