1 2026:CGHC:10828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10367 of 2025 Deepak Singh S/o Late Rajesh Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o M.I.G. 1/1742, Housing Board, Ward No. 16, Industrial Estate, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) .. Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Bori, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Adv. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.03.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 130/2025, registered at Police Station : Bori, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 105 of BNS and Section 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by one Rinku Singh in KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 19.09.2025. The F.I.R. was registered on 20.09.2025, inter alia, on the allegations that the present applicant, on 19.09.2025 at about 08:30 PM, was driving his car bearing Registration No. CG08 AN 3214 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle into a pit situated beside the road at Gram Purda, as a result of which two persons, namely Ashish Choudhary and Ravish Kumar, who were accompanying the applicant in the said car, sustained injuries and subsequently died during treatment on the very same day. It is further alleged that the applicant was under the influence of alcohol while driving the said vehicle. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, an offence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged with malafide intention only to create undue pressure upon the applicant. He further submits that the alleged incident was purely a case of road accident and not a deliberate or intentional act on the part of the applicant and at the most, the applicant can only be attributed with rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the applicant’s birthday fell on 17.09.2025 and in pursuance thereof, the applicant along with the deceased persons, namely Ashish Choudhary and Ravish Kumar, had planned to celebrate the same, which is evident from the WhatsApp chat exchanged between the applicant and Ashish Choudhary, filed as Annexure A/3. It is also submitted that the applicant shared cordial relations with the 3 deceased persons, which is evident from the photographs taken on the date of the incident, filed as Annexure A/4. He further submits that the applicant himself sustained grievous injuries on the left side of the forehead and left forearm, as reflected from the MLC annexed with the charge-sheet and he was admitted to the hospital on 21.09.2025 and discharged on 24.09.2025, which clearly rules out any knowledge or intention on the part of the applicant, the medical documents and photographs of injuries are filed as Annexure A/5. He further submitted that in order to attract punishment under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the alcohol level must exceed 30 mg per 100 ml of blood, whereas in the present case the alcohol level has been found to be 22.6 mg per 100 ml of blood as per the examination report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Durg, and therefore the applicant cannot be held liable on the ground of intoxication. He also submitted that the applicant was never absconding and was undergoing medical treatment due to the injuries sustained in the accident and thereafter he voluntarily appeared before the police authorities on 10.11.2025, which can be verified through CCTV footage. He further submits that a pure case of accidental death has been given the colour of culpable homicide. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 10.11.2025 and had only one previous criminal antecedent, in which he has been acquitted as the same has been explained in para No. 4(a) of the bail application and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and under the influence of alcohol, due to which the accident occurred resulting in the death of two persons. It is further submitted that considering the gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, the material available on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that the incident appears to be a case of road accident and that the applicant himself sustained injuries in the said incident and further considering that the alcohol level of the applicant was found to be below the prescribed limit and the applicant is in jail since 10.11.2025 and had only one previous criminal antecedent in which he has already been acquitted thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application. 7. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Deepak Singh, involved in Crime No. 130/2025, registered at Police Station : Bori, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 105 of BNS and Section 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, be released on bail on 5 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 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 6 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. 9. OfÏce 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 Kunal