[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Kuleshwar Dhivar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15829
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3062 of 2026
Kuleshwar Dhivar S/o Raju Ram Dhivar Aged About 23 Years R/o
Godpara Ward 17 Mahasamund, P.S. Mahasamund Distt Mahasamund
KUNAL
DEWANGAN Chhattisgarh
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
... Applicant(s)
DEWANGAN
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Palari Balodabazar, Distt Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
07/04/2026
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. 472/2025 registered at Police Station- Palari, Balodabazar
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable
under Sections 309(2), 109(1), 111, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant, Ramesh
Kumar Sahu, lodged a written complaint on 16.11.2025 at Police
Station Palari stating that on 13.11.2025, he was travelling from
Palari to Khartora on a motorcycle along with his friend, Bisambhar.
It is alleged that at about 03:30 PM to 03:45 PM, when they had
stopped between Village Ghotiya and Village Kusmi, and while
Bisambhar had gone a short distance away to relieve himself, the
complainant was standing near the motorcycle, at which time six
unknown persons arrived on two motorcycles (three persons on
each), and one of them took out a large knife, assaulted the
complainant and forcibly robbed the mobile phone kept in the front
pocket of his shirt, thereafter fleeing from the spot. On the basis of
the said report, Police Station Palari registered Crime No. 472/2025
against unknown persons under Sections 309(2), 109(1), and 3(5)
of the B.N.S., 2023, and took up the matter for investigation. During
investigation, it was found that the present accused, in furtherance
of a common intention along with other co-accused persons, had
committed such offences in an organized manner, and upon
completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the
competent Court after adding Section 111 of the B.N.S.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and
has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the
alleged offences. It is further submitted that no incriminating articles,
including the alleged looted mobile phone or the weapon used in the
crime, have been recovered from the personal possession of the
applicant, and the alleged recoveries (Vivo Y28S and Vivo Y100)
were made from co-accused persons, namely Rahul Dhruv and
Rishabh Paikra. It is also contended that as per the memorandum
statement of co-accused Rahul Dhruv, the alleged offence was
committed by another co-accused, namely Yaashu Das, and the
present applicant had no role in the incident, coupled with the fact
that there is delay in lodging the FIR. He further submits that the FIR
was initially registered against unknown persons and the present
applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of memorandum
statements of co-accused, which have weak evidentiary value. It is
also argued that co-accused Rishabh Paikra has already been
granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2026
passed in MCRC No. 2610 of 2026, and the case of the present
applicant stands on similar footing. It is further submitted that the
evidence collected by the prosecution is not prima facie sufficient to
connect the applicant with the alleged offence. The applicant is in
judicial custody since 18.11.2025, has no criminal antecedents and
the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he
prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, appearing for the
State/non-applicant, submit that the charge-sheet has been filed
before the competent Court and the trial is currently in progress. He
further concur with the submission made on behalf of the applicant
to the effect that the principle of parity may be considered, however,
he contend that the serious nature of the offences, the ongoing
investigation and the possibility of influencing witnesses weigh
against granting bail to the applicant at this stage.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and
gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since
18.11.2025 and further the fact that similarly situated co-accused
namely Rishabh Paikara and Rahul Dhruv have been granted bail
by this Court in MCRC No. 2610/2026 and MCRC No. 2937/2026
vide orders dated 19.03.2026 and 01.04.2026 respectively and in
the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the
competent Court thus, without further commenting anything on
merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
8. Let the applicant - Kuleshwar Dhivar, involved in Crime No.
472/2025 registered at Police Station- Palari, Balodabazar District-
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under
Sections 309(2), 109(1), 111, 3(5) of Bhartiya 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 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
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 him 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.
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
