[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sohan Sonkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13775
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1017 of 2026
Sohan Sonkar S/o Sukhiram Sonkar Aged About 40 Years R/o Nalapara
Nandai, Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Applicant
versus
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City
SINGH
Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ...Non-applicant
Date: 2026.03.24
10:41:00 +0530
For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
23.03.2026
1.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
13/2026 registered at Police Station - Police Station City Kotwali,
District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offences punishable under
Sections 296, 351(2), 118(1), 109(1), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25
and 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.01.2026, the Complainant
Laxmi Sonkar verbally lodged a complaint at Kotwali Police Station,
District Rajnandgaon to the effect that on 04.01.2026, as usual, she
had set up her vegetable stall in the weekly market, and her daughter
Heena Sonkar was also with her. Next to her stall, Sevati Sonkar (co-
accused) had set up her vegetable stall with her husband Sohan
Sonkar (present applicant). Around evening at about 4:30 PM, her
daughter Heena Sonkar got into an argument with Sevati Sonkar and
her husband over the matter of setting up the stall. Sohan Sonkar was
abusing her daughter Heena Sonkar and threaten to kill her.
Regarding this very issue, Sohan Sonkar, stating that he was going to
the police station with his wife to file a report, left his younger son
sitting there and left the place. Around 5:00 PM, Sohan Sonkar
returned there, and at that time, his elder son Lalla Sonkar also
arrived there. At the same time, her son Mohit alias Monu Sonkar,
came at the place of incident. Seeing him, Lalla Sonkar came from
behind, saying, "Your family members keep fighting with my family
members," and attacked her son Mohit alias Monu Sonkar with a knife
he was carrying, striking him on the back and his buttocks, and then
fled from the spot. As a result, her son was bleeding from the back
and buttocks, and the people at the market stall got him admitted to
the district hospital.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an
innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this offence. It is
further submitted that the Case Diary itself clearly delineates the
incident into two distinct phases an initial verbal altercation and a
subsequent incident of alleged stabbing occurring after a gap of 30-
45 minutes during which the Applicant had already left the spot and
proceeded to the police station to lodge a complaint, thereby negating
any pre-arranged plan, meeting of minds, or concert with the juvenile
co-accused. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence to suggest
that the Applicant instigated, aided, abetted, or conspired in the
alleged assault, and mere presence without active participation cannot
attract the doctrine of common intention. The impugned order itself
acknowledges that the fatal act was committed solely by the juvenile
co-accused Yuvraj @ Lalla Sonkar, from whom the weapon was
recovered. It is further submitted that the Applicant was initially
released on notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita on 05.01.2026, and was subsequently re-arrested
on 10.01.2026 upon addition of Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita without any fresh incriminating material, indicating that even
the investigating agency did not consider custodial interrogation
necessary at the outset. The Applicant has been implicated under
Sections 109 and 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita purely on
conjecture and presumption, without any cogent material establishing
abetment or concealment. Moreover, the co-accused Sevati Sonkar
has already been granted bail on the ground of absence from the
scene at the time of the stabbing, and the Applicant stands on a
similar footing, thereby entitling him to parity. The Applicant has
remained in judicial custody since 10.01.2026, it is prayed that he be
enlarged on regular bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has
already been filed in the present case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the
allegations, and the material available on record, which indicates that
cross-reports have been lodged by both parties and that the injuries
sustained by both sides are simple in nature, and further considering
that one of the co-accused has already been granted regular bail by
the trial Court, and taking into account that the applicant has remained
in judicial custody since 10.01.2026 and that the charge-sheet has
already been filed before the competent Court, and as the conclusion
of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the considered
view that the applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail.
7. Let the Applicant - Sohan Sonkar, involved in Crime No. 13/2026
registered at Police Station - Police Station City Kotwali, District
Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296,
351(2), 118(1), 109(1), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with
two local 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 his 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Vaibhav
