1 2025:CGHC:48337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7586 of 2025 1. Lokeshwar Rout S/o Krishna Kumar Aged About 24 Years R/o Gram Kandul, P.S. Arjunda, Tahsil- Arjunda, District- Balod C.G. 2. Virendra Kumar Baghel S/o Kanhaiya Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o Gram Kandul, P.S. Arjunda, Tahsil- Arjunda, District- Balod C.G. 3. Kirteshwer Sinha S/o Ramkumar Sinha Aged About 24 Years R/o Gram Kandul, P.S. Arjunda, Tahsil- Arjunda, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Government By P.S. Arjunda, P.S.- Arjunda, District- Balod C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.09 .202 5 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 122/2025, registered at Police Station – Arjunda, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 221, 121(1), 324(3), 191(1), 296, 351(3), 115(2), 331(3), 126(2), 132 of the BNS PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.19 19:58:30 +0530 2 (Corresponding Sections 186, 332, 146, 294, 506, 323, 454, 341, 353 of the IPC and New Section 324(3) of the BNS) 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.08.2025, between 9:30 AM and 10:30 AM, the applicants, along with other co-accused persons, entered the premises of the Electricity Distribution Center, Tehsil-2, Arjunda, District Balod, to raise grievances regarding a three-day power outage in their village. During the incident, it is alleged that the applicants and others used abusive language, issued threats of serious harm to staff members, and obstructed official duties at the center. They are further alleged to have engaged in a physical altercation with employees, including forcibly grabbing one Purushottam Sahu by the collar and assaulting him. Additionally, they allegedly damaged electrical equipment inside the office and obstructed traffic on the main road adjacent to the electricity office. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered against the accused persons. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the co-accused persons, namely, Padum Lal Sahu and Rajendra Kumar Sahu and Chimman Lal Dewangan have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2025, 04.09.2025 and 10.09.2025 passed in MCRCA Nos. 1315/2025, 1348/2025 and 1378/2025, respectively, further, the co-accused persons, namely, Kailash @ Raju Sinha has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7186/2025. He also submitted that the 3 applicants have no previous criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicants are in jail since 18.08.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory and regular bail by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the co-accused persons, namely, Padum Lal Sahu and Rajendra Kumar Sahu and Chimman Lal Dewangan have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2025, 04.09.2025 and 10.09.2025 passed in MCRCA Nos. 1315/2025, 1348/2025 and 1378/2025, respectively, further, the co-accused persons, namely, Kailash @ Raju Sinha has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7186/2025. He also submitted that the applicants have no previous criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicants are in jail since 18.08.2025 , and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be granted regular bail in this case on the ground of parity. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3 - Lokeshwar Rout, Virendra Kumar Baghel and Kirteshwer Sinha, respectively involved in Crime No. 122/2025, registered at Police Station – Arjunda, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 221, 121(1), 324(3), 191(1), 296, 351(3), 115(2), 331(3), 126(2), 132 of the BNS (Corresponding Sections 186, 332, 146, 294, 506, 323, 454, 341, 353 of the IPC and New Section 324(3) of the BNS), be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, 5 proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants 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 applicants 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 them 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 Preeti