[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Praveen Kumar Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13790
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
GOURI MCRC No. 2727 of 2026
MUDALIAR
Praveen Kumar Dhruv S/o Shiv Prasad Dhruv Aged About 19 Years R/o
Digitally signed by
GOURI
MUDALIAR
Village Bhathapara, Raikheda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
Date: 2026.03.24
11:14:04 +0530 ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station -
Kharora, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.
For : Ms. Ritika Verma, PL.
Respondent/State
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
23/03/2026
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.48/2026 registered at Police Station Kharora, District - Raipur
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109 (1), 190, 191 (2),
191 (3), 296 of B.N.S. (As per F.I.R.).
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that out of a minor scuffle between
two groups during the Basant Panchami Mela on 23.01.2026 at Village
Madai, where injuries were sustained on both sides. Cross FIRs (No.
48/2026 and 73/2026) were registered at Police Station Kharora,
indicating that both parties acted as aggressors as well as in self-
defence. Subsequently, a compromise (Razinama) was arrived at
between the parties. The present applicant was merely present at the
spot. FIR was registered on 24.01.2026 under Sections 109(1), 190,
191(2), 191(3), and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 based
on the complainant's report.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that
the applicant is not named in the FIR and also compromise has taken
place between the parties. He would submit that co-accused persons
namely Poshan Lal Dhiwar, Manish Verma, Jitendra Bandhe, Raj Alias
Raja Dhruv, Ajit Dhritlehre & Ishwar Alias Bittu Tondon have been
granted bail by this court in MCRC No. 2372 of 2026 on 13.03.2026.
He would submit that the applicant is in jail since 24/01/2026 and
conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of
bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
but she do not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have been
granted bail by this Court.
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,
considering the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR,
compromise has taken place between the parties, further the fact that
co-accused persons namely Poshan Lal Dhiwar, Manish Verma,
Jitendra Bandhe, Raj Alias Raja Dhruv, Ajit Dhritlehre & Ishwar Alias
Bittu Tondon have been granted bail by this court in MCRC No. 2372 of
2026 on 13.03.2026, period of detention of the applicant since
24/01/2026 and also considering the fact that trial is likely to take some
time for its conclusion, therefore this Court is of the view that the
applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the
Applicant- Praveen Kumar Dhruv, involved in Crime No.48/2026
registered at Police Station Kharora, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 109 (1), 190, 191 (2), 191 (3), 296
of B.N.S., 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.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
gouri
