[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Omprakash Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16624
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3297 of 2026
Omprakash Netam S/o Late Shri Ramesh Netam Aged About 20 Years
R/o Mahavir Nagar, Back Of Gupta Building Golden Tower P.S. New
Rajendra Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Telibandha, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Kartik Kathuria, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy G.A.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
10.04.2026
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. 667/2025 registered at Police Station
Telibandha, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 109 and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (for
short 'BNS') & under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 26.10.2025, the
police of Police Station Telibandha received information that the
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
accused, along with co-accused persons, in furtherance of their
common intention, wrongfully restrained and assaulted the
complainant/injured, namely Gopal Nirmalkar. It is alleged that the
present accused was armed with a sharp-edged weapon (knife)
and inflicted injuries upon the victim with the intention to cause his
death. On the basis of the said incident, an F.I.R. was registered,
and hence, the present bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific overt act
has been attributed to him except vague and omnibus allegations. It
is further submitted that the applicant has no role in the commission
of the alleged offence and there is no legal material or evidence
available on record to constitute the offence as alleged by the
prosecution. The applicant has been made an accused only on the
basis of the statement of the co-accused and there is no direct
involvement, as he was merely a driver of the vehicle. He further
submits that no weapon or incriminating article has been recovered
from his possession, and no eyewitness has specifically attributed
any overt act to him. As per the prosecution story itself, the injuries
are not on vital parts and are not sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death, therefore serious offences are not made out.
It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 26.10.2025 and
is a 20-year-old young man who is the sole breadwinner of his
family and has no previous criminal antecedents, and the charge-
sheet has already been filed, 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 appearing for the non-
applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the
charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the
competent Court. She further submits that the present applicant
along with co-accused persons, committed a serious offence in
furtherance of their common intention and the accused was armed
with a sharp-edged weapon (knife), by which he inflicted injuries on
the complainant with an intention to cause his death. Considering
the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was committed,
the applicant is not entitled to be released on 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, it appears that though the applicant is alleged to have been
involved along with co-accused persons in the commission of the
offence, but his role is limited and no specific overt act has been
attributed to him. The applicant is stated to be merely a driver and
no weapon or incriminating article has been recovered from his
possession. The injuries sustained by the complainant are not on
vital parts and are not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. Further the fact that the applicant has no previous
criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed in the present
case and he is in jail since 26.10.2025 and the trial is likely to take
sometime for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the
applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the
Applicant- Omprakash Netam, involved in Crime No. 667/2025
registered at Police Station Telibandha, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 109 and 61(2) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 & under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act,
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.
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
