1 2026:CGHC:9559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1902 of 2026 • Santosh Tandi S/o Late Goverdhan Tandi, Aged About 47 Years R/o Near Shiv Temple, Kalibadi, P.S. City Kotwali, District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- City Kotwali, Dist. Raipur C.G. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.02.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.80/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 333, 118(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (for short “BNS”), 2023 2. The first bail application filed by the applicant was rejected vide order dated 01.09.2025 in MCRC No.6855 of 2025. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.02.25 11:12:53 +0530 2 3. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant, Pande Jagat, lodged a report alleging that on 11.05.2025 at about 11:30 a.m., while he was watching television along with his daughter in the presence of Sanju Rawat and Sunil Bagh, the accused/applicant came in front of his house and started abusing them in filthy language. When the complainant tried to stop him, the accused, in a fit of anger, entered the complainant's house and assaulted him with hands and fists and further attacked him with a cutter used for cutting banners and posters, and also assaulted his daughter. On the basis of the said report, FIR was registered. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the first bail application filed by the applicant was rejected vide order dated 01.09.2025 in MCRC No.6855 of 2025. and he has filed second bail on the ground that there are total twelve prosecution witnesses, out of which only three witnesses have been examined including injured and complainant and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. He also submits that there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 12.05.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, 3 nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that total twelve prosecution witnesses, out of which only three witnesses have been examined including injured and complainant and they have not supported the case of the prosecution, the applicant is in jail since 12.05.2025, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, looking to the detention period of the applicant I am inclined to allow this bail application. 8. Let applicant, Santosh Tandi involved in Crime No.80/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 333, 118(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (for short “BNS”), 2023, 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 4 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. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 10. 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 Vaishali