1 2026:CGHC:11466 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2177 of 2026 Mo. Faijan S/o Abdul Rahim Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Niyogi Nagar, Rajhara, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Roshan Singh Lamba, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.03.2026 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. 527/2025 registered at Police Station- Balod, District- Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 326(G), 3(5), 111, 61(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Devendra Sahu lodged a report before the police stating that he is the President of Hamraj Party and the owner of a Brezza car bearing registration No. CG-24-W-7166. He stated that there is a parking RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 space beside his house where he usually parks his vehicle, and on 01.12.2025 at about 06:30 PM he parked the said vehicle in his garage and went inside his house. Thereafter, his wife informed him that two unknown persons had earlier come to their house and were asking about him. At about 06:45 PM, when the complainant was at his home, two unknown persons again came there while another unknown person remained standing on a motorcycle at a distance of about 50 feet. They called the complainant and asked whether he was the President of the Hamraj Party and a journalist. When the complainant replied in the afÏrmative, they informed him that illegal liquor was being sold in their area and requested him to publish the matter in the newspaper and also raise the issue through the organization. The complainant advised them to submit the complaint in writing, after which they left. Later, at about 09:00 PM, when the complainant was watching television with his family, he heard an unusual sound from outside his house. When his wife came out, she noticed that fire had broken out in the garage and the complainant’s car was burning. Thereafter, the complainant called his neighbors and, on the basis of his report, the police registered the case. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant and other co- accused persons have been arrested, Hence, the present bail application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the FIR was lodged against the 3 unknown person and only on the basis of suspect the present applicant has been implicated. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Mamta Dadsena, Ashwani Kumar Dadsena, Abhishek Choure and Aniket Meshram have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 08.01.2026, 22.01.2026, 02.02.2026 and 10.02.2026 in MCRC Nos. 132/2026, 811/2026, 1069/2026 and 1444/2026 respectively. He also submits that the applicant has six previous criminal antecedents, out of which he has already been acquitted in five cases and only one case is pending, and he is in jail since 07.12.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 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, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 07.12.2025, the fact that though the present applicant and other co-accused were committed that said crime, but other co- accused persons, namely, Mamta Dadsena, Ashwani Kumar 4 Dadsena, Abhishek Choure and Aniket Meshram have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 08.01.2026, 22.01.2026, 02.02.2026 and 10.02.2026 in MCRC Nos. 132/2026, 811/2026, 1069/2026 and 1444/2026 respectively, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the applicant has six previous criminal antecedents, out of which he has already been acquitted in five cases and only one case is pending, the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Mo. Faijan, involved in Crime No. 527/2025 registered at Police Station- Balod, District- Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 326(G), 3(5), 111, 61(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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 sufÏcient 5 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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan