[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Manish Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13776
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1003 of 2026
Manish Das S/o Kaushal Das Aged About 19 Years R/o Gram Kachora,
Police Station Urga, Post Kothari, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
VAIBHAV versus
SINGH
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Urga, District Korba,
Date: 2026.03.24
10:40:59 +0530
Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, 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.
09/2026 registered at Police Station - Urga District Korba, (C.G.), for
the offences punishable under Sections 351(3), 115(2), 109(1), 190,
191(2), 191(3), 3(5) of the BNS 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the applicant along with the
other co-accused has abused and assaulted the complainant and his
nephew by throwing stones and bricks. It has further been alleged that
the applicant has tried to kill the complainant's nephew by assaulting
him with the knife on below of his left side shoulder. That, upon the
said allegation a FIR has been lodged against the present applicant
and other co-accused bearing FIR no. 09/2026 registered on dated
03.01.2026atPolice Station Urga, District Korba, Chhattisgarh for
alleged offence under sections Section296, 351(3), 115(2), 109(1),
190, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023and
section 25, 27 of Arms Act.
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 in the aforesaid case and has no role
whatsoever in the alleged offence. He is in judicial custody since
06.01.2026, and his continued incarceration, particularly in the
company of hardened criminals, is likely to adversely affect his
conduct and future. The prosecution case is based on speculative and
unsubstantiated allegations, with no credible evidence linking the
applicant to the alleged crime, and no seizure has been made from
him in connection with the present offence. It is further submitted that
on the date of the alleged incident, the applicant was not present at
the place of occurrence, as he had visited the Maa Madwarani Temple
for blessings. The applicant has been implicated merely on the basis
of association with a co-accused, who happens to be his friend,
without any substantive or linking evidence. There is no material on
record to suggest any motive, animosity, or reason for the applicant to
commit the alleged act, and the allegations are vague and general in
nature, unsupported by credible evidence, thereby adversely affecting
his reputation. The applicant is a young boy aged about 19 years with
no criminal antecedents, and his continued detention at this formative
stage would cause irreparable harm to his future, education, and
career. Being capable of reformation and rehabilitation, he deserves to
be enlarged on bail, as unnecessary detention would result in undue
hardship.
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 and that the applicant has one
previous criminal antecedent; therefore, he is not entitled to the grant
of regular bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant,
and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been
filed before the competent Court and that the applicant has remained
in judicial custody since 05.01.2026, and as the conclusion of the trial
is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to
the present applicant, as the case of the applicant is distinguishable
from that of the co-accused.
7. Let the Applicant - Manish Das, involved in Crime No. 09/2026
registered at Police Station - Urga, District Korba, (C.G.), for the
offences punishable under Sections 351(3), 115(2), 109(1), 190,
191(2), 191(3), 3(5) of the BNS 2023 and Sections 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
