[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Prakash Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12703
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2499 of 2026
1 - Prakash Yadav S/o Shantilal Yadav Aged About 36 Years Resident
Of Ward No.11, Saraipali Thana- Saraipali Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.)
2 - Vishal Sona S/o Chhabilal Sona Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward
No.11, Saraipali Thana- Saraipali Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.)
3 - Karan Behra S/o Shyam Behra Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward
Digitally
AKHILESH signed by
KUMAR AKHILESH
No .11, Near Sabzi Mandi Saraipali Thana- Saraipali Distt -
DEWANGAN KUMAR
DEWANGAN
Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station -
Saraipali Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
17/03/2026
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. 280/2025 registered at Police Station
Saraipali Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable
under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 309(4), 324(4), 109, 238 and
3(5) of BNS.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.09.2025 at about
7:30 PM, the complainant Raju Chauhan was loading paddy into a
truck when the accused persons arrived, assaulted him with a
metal rod and hands/fists, abused and threatened him, and
robbed Rs.2,000 from his pocket, causing injuries. The incident
was reported on 01.10.2025, and after completion of investigation,
charge-sheet has been filed and the matter is pending at the
stage of framing of charges. Hence, the bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants has
not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated
in offence in question. He further submits that there are no
directed or indirect evidence collected by the police against the
present applicants. He also submits that the medical report of the
victim does not specify the nature of injuries, and the X-ray report
reflects only a hairline fracture. Furthermore, the blood stains
allegedly found on the seized rod have not been conclusively
established to be human blood as per the FSL report. The
applicant No.1 and 2 are in jail since 02.10.2025 and applicant
No.3 is in jail since 03.10.2025, so far as their criminal
antecedents are concerned, applicant No.1 has 5 criminal
antecedents of the years 2013, 2014, 2020 and 2023, out of
which, only the case of the year 2020 is pending, applicant No.2
has 6 criminal antecedents of the years 2020, 2021 and 2024, out
of which, only two cases of the years 2020 and 2021 are pending
and applicant No.3 has 5 criminal antecedents of the years 2020,
2021, 2023 and 2024, out of which, only one case of the year
2021 is pending, further 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.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in
the present case. He further submits that the applicants along with
co-accused persons allegedly assaulted the complainant with a
rod and hands/fists, caused injuries, and robbed Rs.2,000/- while
threatening him. So far as seizure from the applicants are
concerned, from applicant No.1 seizure of Rs.300/- has been
made, from applicant No.2 seizure of iron rod has been made and
from applicant No.3 seizure of Rs.300/- has been made. He also
submits that applicant No.1 has 5 criminal antecedents of the
years 2013, 2014, 2020 and 2023, applicant No.2 has 6 criminal
antecedents of the years 2020, 2021 and 2024 and applicant No.3
has 5 criminal antecedents of the years 2020, 2021, 2023 and
2024, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail.
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, period of detention of the applicant
Nos.1 and 2, since 02.10.2025 and applicant No.3 since,
03.10.2025, the fact that though the applicants along with co-
accused persons allegedly assaulted the complainant with a rod
and hands/fists, caused injuries, and robbed Rs.2,000/- while
threatening him, but considering the criminal antecedents and
seizure of the applicants, as applicant No.1 has 5 criminal
antecedents of the years 2013, 2014, 2020 and 2023, out of
which, only the case of the year 2020 is pending, applicant No.2
has 6 criminal antecedents of the years 2020, 2021 and 2024, out
of which, only two cases of the years 2020 and 2021 are pending
and applicant No.3 has 5 criminal antecedents of the years 2020,
2021, 2023 and 2024, out of which, only one case of the year
2021 is pending. Moreover, from applicant No.1 seizure of
Rs.300/- has been made, from applicant No.2 seizure of iron rod
has been made and from applicant No.3 seizure of Rs.300/- has
been made and the charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of
the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in
this case.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
8. Let the Applicants-Prakash Yadav, Vishal Sona and Karan
Behra, involved in Crime No. 280/2025 registered at Police
Station Saraipali Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 309(4), 324(4),
109, 238 and 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on their furnishing
a 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.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Akhil
