Arun Sagarwanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 716 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Arun Sagarwanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                1




                                                              2026:CGHC:13017
                                                                             NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                    MCRC No. 1673 of 2026

            Arun Sagarwanshi S/o Fulchand Sagarwanshi Aged About 29 Years R/o
            Amleshwar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        ... Applicant
                                             versus
            State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, Police Station Jamul, District Durg,
            Chhattisgarh
                                                                  ... Non-Applicant

            For Applicant              : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate.
            For Non-Applicant/State    : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate
                            Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                                         Order on Board
            18.03.2026

            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 applicant who has been arrested in

connection with Crime No. 918/2025 registered at Police Station-

Jamul, District Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under

Sections 115(2), 85, 64(2)(m), 138, 351(3) and 89 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant (mother of RAHUL DEWANGAN the victim) lodged a report alleging that the victim had been Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN acquainted with co-accused Hemant Agrawal since the year 2023,

and that both of them had solemnized marriage at Arya Samaj,

Raipur, and were residing together as husband and wife. It is further

alleged that the victim was not willing to continue residing with the

co-accused; however, he kept her with him on the pretext of

inducement. Thereafter, approximately one month prior to the

incident, the victim left Raipur and reached Sakhi Centre, Durg,

from where the complainant brought her back home about 15 days

prior to the incident. It is further alleged that on 19.11.2025 at

around 10:30 AM, co-accused Hemant Agrawal, along with his

associates, arrived in two vehicles at the complainant's residence,

and after allegedly assaulting her, forcibly took the victim with them

to Raipur (C.G.). On the basis of these allegations, an FIR was

registered at Police Station Jamul, District Durg (Chhattisgarh),

against co-accused Hemant Agrawal and others for offences

punishable under Sections 115(2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, and

no offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life is made

out against him. It is contended that the prosecution case is based

on vague, speculative and unsubstantiated allegations, without any

credible material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence.

The applicant is a car booking driver, and on 19.11.2025, the co-

accused, who is the husband of the victim and the main accused in

the present case, had merely hired the applicant's vehicle bearing

registration No. CG 04 LV 1810 (registered in the name of his

father) on a rental basis to bring his wife from her parental home,

pursuant to which the applicant accompanied him from Raipur to

Village Kurud, District Durg in the ordinary course of his

professional duty, without having any knowledge of any alleged

dispute between the husband and wife. It is further submitted that

even as per the material forming part of the charge sheet, including

the memorandum of co-accused Pravin Bhagat, it clearly supports

the version of the applicant that the vehicle was hired on booking,

and the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the

memorandum statement of the main accused, which has no

evidentiary value in absence of independent corroboration. It is also

contended that from the statement of the victim recorded under

Section 183 BNSS, the entire allegations are directed against her

husband/co-accused, and no specific role has been attributed to the

present applicant, which clearly indicates that the dispute is

essentially matrimonial in nature. It is also submitted that the

present applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet

has been filed before the competent Court, and the applicant is in

jail since 14.01.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its

conclusion, therefore, he prays 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 not been submitted in the present case. He

further submits that the applicant was actively involved in the

commission of the offence and cannot be treated as a mere driver

acting in a professional capacity. It is contended that the applicant

accompanied the main accused, who is the husband of the victim,

at the time of the incident and facilitated the act of forcibly taking the

victim, thereby playing an active role in the crime. It is further

submitted that the allegations are serious in nature, involving

forceful abduction and assault, and the investigation has revealed

sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicant. Considering the

gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of 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, the material available on record, and the submissions

advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds

that the present applicant stands on a footing distinguishable from

the main accused, who is the husband of the victim and against

whom specific and direct allegations have been made. Insofar as

the applicant is concerned, his role appears to be limited, prima

facie, to that of a cab driver whose vehicle was hired by the main

accused, and no specific overt act has been attributed to him either

in the FIR or in the statement of the victim recorded under Section

183 BNSS. The case against the applicant is primarily based on

circumstantial material, has no any previous criminal antecedents,

and the charge sheet has already been filed, with the applicant

being in jail since 14.01.2026, and no further custodial interrogation

is required. Without commenting on the merits of the case, and

considering that the applicant is distinguishable from the main

accused, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the

Applicant - Arun Sagarwanshi, involved in Crime No. 918/2025

registered at Police Station- Jamul, District Durg, (C.G.) for the

offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 85, 64(2)(m), 138,

351(3) and 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on

bail on furnishing 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