[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Lal Bahadur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12950
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2558 of 2026
Lal Bahadur S/o Late Rambriksh Aged About 24 Years R/o Dhandhapur,
Badkapara, P.S. Rajpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Rajpur, District -
Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Prachi Diwan, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Digitally
RAJSHEKHAR signed by
SONI RAJSHEKHAR
SONI Order on Board
18.03.2026
1.
The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant
of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
40/2025, registered at Police Station - Rajpur, District - Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296,
351(2), 115(2), 109 and 3(5) of the BNS.
2. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide
order dated 09.07.2025 passed in MCRC No.5293 of 2025.
3. The case of the prosecution, is that complainant Ramsigh Sandilya
lodged report in concerned Police Station stating that on 24.02.2025 at
about 7 pm his nephew Sonu and Mannu went into village Gopalpur to
Dhamdhapur in Barat and at Wedding they were performing dancing
and singing during the event Lal Bahadur, Panda, Samla and Krishan
allegedly abused assaulted sonu and mannu with stick abusing them
obscenely and threating to kill them asking them why were they
outsider making our village girls dance, as per the said report crime
was registered against the applicants and other co-accused. Hence,
this application.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further
submitted that the co-accused persons namely, Karamchand, Krishna
Kumar and Anil Singh have already been granted bail by this Court
vide orders dated 28.10.2025 and 19.02.2026 passed in MCRC Nos.
8537/2025 and 1628/2026, moreover, the injured namely Sonu
Sandilaya has been examined before the trial Court and has not
supported the case of prosecution, hence, turned hostile. The applicant
is in jail since 24.05.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its
conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the instant
second bail application of the applicant and submits that the applicant
along with the co-accused is said to have assaulted the injured and
due to which he has sustained grievous injuries on his person, but
could not dispute the fact that co-accused person has already been
granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is
identical to that of the co-accused, and also that the injured witness
has turned hostile before the trial Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the
documents available on record.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and
the fact that the co-accused persons namely, Karamchand, Krishna
Kumar and Anil Singh have already been granted bail by this Court
vide orders dated 28.10.2025 and 19.02.2026 passed in MCRC Nos.
8537/2025 and 1628/2026, moreover, the injured namely Sonu
Sandilaya has been examined before the trial Court and has not
supported the case of prosecution, hence, turned hostile, and the
applicant is in jail since 24.05.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely
to take some time, I am inclined to allow this second bail application,
on the ground of parity.
8. Let applicant, Lal Bahadur, involved in Crime No. 40/2025, registered
at Police Station - Rajpur, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109 and
3(5) of the BNS, 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
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rajshekhar
