[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15830
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3059 of 2026
Ram Soni S/o Mukesh Soni, Aged About 21 Years R/o Barejpara, Near
Samudayik Bhawan, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)
KUNAL
DEWANGAN ... Applicant(s)
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
versus
DEWANGAN
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Kotwali Ambikapur,district-Surguja (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, 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. 781/2025 registered at Police Station- Kotwali, Ambikapur,
District- Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections
115(2), 191(1), 296(b), 331(6) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the FIR was lodged by
the complainant Saurabh Mishra with the intent that on 20.10.2025
in the evening, a quarrel took place between accused Ansh Pandit
and his cousin Prakhar Mishra near Hotel Avalon, and thereafter, on
21.10.2025 at about 01:30 AM, co-accused Ansh Pandit along with
co-accused Golu alias Ganesh, present applicant and other
associates came near the house of the complainant, abused loudly
and threatened to kill Saurabh Mishra and Prakhar Mishra, and
further damaged the vehicles parked outside the house, namely
Innova, Hyundai i20 and Honda Amaze by breaking their window
glasses. It is further alleged that thereafter co-accused Baba Pandit
(father of Ansh Pandit) along with his wife also reached the spot
and all the accused persons forcibly entered the house by pushing
the main door, abused the complainant and assaulted him and his
cousin with hands, fists, sticks and other weapons, wherein
specifically accused Ansh Pandit assaulted the complainant on his
head with a weapon causing bleeding injuries and other accused
persons also participated in the assault and on hearing the
commotion, family members and nearby persons namely Himanshu
Singh and Manish Singh intervened to rescue them, during which
Himanshu Singh was also assaulted and sustained injuries, during
investigation, the name of the present applicant was implicated on
the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Om Pandit and
the present applicant was arrested on 05.11.2025 in connection
with Crime No. 781/2025 registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 296(b), 351(3), 115(2), 331(6), 191(1) of BNS,
2023.
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 prosecution has failed to establish any
specific role of the present applicant in the alleged offence and the
entire case is doubtful, particularly in view of the fact that the name
of the applicant does not find place in the FIR and he has been
implicated only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-
accused persons. It is also submitted that similarly placed co-
accused persons namely Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Om Tiwari and
Sudhanshu Rai @ Chinu Pandit have already been granted bail by
this Court vide common order dated 23.02.2026 passed in MCRC
No. 9365/2025 and MCRC No. 9912/2025 further, the investigation
in the present case is complete and charge-sheet has been filed
and the applicant is in judicial custody since 05.11.2025 and has
only one criminal antecedent under the BNS, in which he is on bail
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
05.11.2025 and further the fact that similarly situated co-accused
namely Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Om Tiwari and Sudhanshu Rai @
Chinu Pandit have already been granted bail by this Court vide
common order dated 23.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 9365/2025
and MCRC No. 9912/2025 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 - Ram Soni, involved in Crime No. 781/2025
registered at Police Station- Kotwali, Ambikapur, District- Surguja
(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 191(1),
296(b), 331(6) and 351(3) of BNS, 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
