[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Suraj Khunte vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:10306
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2032 of 2026
1 - Suraj Khunte S/o Haricharan Khunte Aged About 20 Years R/o
Village- Tarda, Tahsil- Barpali, District- Korba (C.G.)
2 - Akash Jwala S/o Chattram Jwala Aged About 19 Years R/o Village-
Tarda, Tahsil- Barpali, District- Korba (C.G.)
... Applicants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Urga, District- Korba (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
27.02.2026
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 applicants who have been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 524/2025 registered at Police Station
Urga, District Korba, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5) and 310(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023. (for short 'BNS').
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 22.11.2025 the
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN complainant Atal Mirja lodged a written report stating that his
brother, Pritesh Mirja, was abused, threatened with death and
assaulted by 5-6 unknown persons near Bharatmala/Akharapali
Toll Plaza, due to which he sustained injuries and was admitted to
the hospital. On the basis of the said report, an offence under
Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 was registered and taken up for investigation. During
investigation, the injured stated that the accused persons wrongfully
restrained him at about 6:00 PM, assaulted him, snatched
Rs.2,000/- in cash and his VIVO V-50 mobile phone, and left him at
the spot presuming him to be dead, whereupon Section 310(2) of
the BNS was also added. On the basis of secret information, the
accused persons were apprehended and, in their memorandum
statements, they disclosed their involvement in the assault and
robbery, including transfer and withdrawal of the looted amount and
possession of the stolen mobile phone. Certain amounts of cash
and a belt were seized during investigation. Hence, this bail
application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
contended that the FIR was initially lodged against unknown
persons and the present applicants have been arrested merely on
the basis of suspicion without any cogent evidence connecting them
to the alleged offence. It is further submitted that only a sum of Rs.
100/- - 100/- was seized from the possession of the applicants
pursuant to their memorandum statement, which by no stretch of
imagination can be said to be the property of dacoity, particularly
when, as per the prosecution case itself, an amount of Rs. 2,000/-
was transferred through mobile by the injured. It is also contended
that the Test Identification Parade conducted by the Naib Tehsildar
is vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural
safeguards. Moreover, as per the MLC report, the injuries sustained
by the victim are simple in nature. He further submits that similarly
situated co-accused person, namely, Akash Lahre has already
been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2026 in
MCRC No. 1865/2026. He also submits that the applicants have no
criminal antecedents, and they are in jail since 26.11.2025, the
charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time
for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the
applicants on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application of the applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has
been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact
that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court and the
case of the present applicants is identical to that of the co-accused.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of offence, the fact that though there are
allegations that the applicants along with other co-accused persons
wrongfully restrained the injured, assaulted him, robbed him of cash
and mobile phone, but the injuries are not shown at this stage to be
life-threatening in nature. Further the fact that the other co-accused,
namely, Akash Lahre has already been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 24.02.2026 in MCRC No. 1865/2026, and the
case of present applicants is identical to that of the co-accused
person, further the applicant No.2 has only 01 criminal antecedent,
the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, they are in jail
since 26.11.2025 and trial is likely to take sometime for its
conclusion, and hence, this Court is of the view that the applicants
are entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of
parity.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let
the Applicants - Suraj Khunte and Akash Jwala, involved in
Crime No. 524/2025 registered at Police Station Urga, District
Korba, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296,
351(3), 115(2), 3(5) and 310(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two
sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect
that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
their counsel. In case of their absence, without
sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against
them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure their presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued
and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against them, in
accordance with law, under Section 209 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are
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 them 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
