[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Shravan Dhruw vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13177
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2593 of 2026
Shravan Dhruw S/o Chhatar Singh Dhruw Aged About 38 Years (Wrongly
Mentioned As 28 Years In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order), R/o-
Hatkeshar Ward Dhamtari, Tehsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station - City
Kotwali, District- Dhamtari (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
19.03.2026
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. 327/2025 registered at Police Station-
City Kotwali, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable
under Sections 204, 319(2), 331(3), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a complaint was lodged by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
the complainant, Dilip Rathore, stating that on 17.11.2025, about 6-
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
7 persons impersonating themselves as Income Tax officials
conducted a raid at his residence. It is further stated that the
complaint was filed on 12.12.2025, pursuant to which the present
applicant along with other co-accused persons came to be
apprehended. Hence, this bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not
committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence
in question. She further submits that similarly situated co-accused
persons, namely, Jitendra Baghel, Sanjay Kumar Ramteke and
Vivek @ Vicky Korsewada have already been granted bail by this
Court vide orders dated 10.03.2026, 13.03.2026 and 16.03.2026 in
MCRC Nos. 2228/2026, 2353/2026 and 2458/2026 respectively.
She also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal
antecedents, and he is in jail since 16.12.2025, the charge-sheet
has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its
conclusion. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant on
the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has
been filed before the competent Court, 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.
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
since 16.12.2025, the fact that though the present applicant and
other co-accused were committed that said crime, but other co-
accused persons, namely, Jitendra Baghel, Sanjay Kumar Ramteke
and Vivek @ Vicky Korsewada have already been granted bail by
this Court vide orders dated 10.03.2026, 13.03.2026 and
16.03.2026 in MCRC Nos. 2228/2026, 2353/2026 and 2458/2026
respectively, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of
the co-accused persons, further the applicant has no previous
criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed in the present
case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be
released on bail in this case on the ground of parity.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the
Applicant - Shravan Dhruw, involved in Crime No. 327/2025
registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.)
for the offence punishable under Sections 204, 319(2), 331(3),
61(2), 3(5) 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
