1 2026:CGHC:19377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2768 of 2026 Mohanlal Rathore @ Chhotu S/o Late Ravishankar Rathore Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 23, Kera Raod Janjgir, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.04.2026 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. 53/2026, registered at Police Station : Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 119(1), 326(G), 333, 3(5) of BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant, Gangabai Rathore, lodged a report at Police Station Janjgir alleging KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 that on 16.01.2026 at around 10:00 a.m., the applicant, after consuming liquor, came near the house of the complainant, abused the complainant’s daughter using filthy language and also threatened to kill her. Thereafter, on the same day at around 1:00 p.m., the applicant along with the co-accused again came near the house of the complainant, poured petrol on the door of the house and set it on fire, due to which the door of the complainant’s house was burnt. The accused persons also trespassed into the house and caused damage to the household articles. Based upon such, aforesaid offences were registered against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the daughter of the complainant, who is a divorced woman, had been residing with the applicant as husband and wife for the last 4–5 years and had already obtained an amount of ₹12,00,000/- from him. Upon his refusal to meet her further monetary demands, the present false case has been lodged at her instance. It is further submitted that the complainant and her daughter had earlier threatened to falsely implicate the applicant and his family members in a serious offence, and in fact, similar false allegations have also been made against the applicant in the past. It is also contended that the co-accused Amit Yadav has already been granted bail vide order dated 28.01.2026 in Bail Application No. 84/2026, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. It is further argued that the present complaint has been filed only with an intention to extort money. 3 Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has total 10 criminal antecedents out of which in 08 cases, he has been acquitted and only two cases under the IPC are pending as the same has been explained in the bail application of para No.4(A) and the charge- sheet has already been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, hence, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant has committed a serious offence and there are specific and direct allegations against him. It is further submitted that the applicant, along with the co-accused, not only abused and threatened the complainant’s daughter but also poured petrol and set fire to the complainant’s house, causing damage to property. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the material available on record and the criminal antecedents of the applicant which are 10 in numbers, as the same has been explained in the bail application of para No.4(A), it is prayed that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. It is noted that the dispute appears to have arisen out of 4 personal relations between the applicant and the complainant’s daughter, who had been residing with the applicant for a considerable period and the allegations are prima facie rooted in a monetary dispute. It is further taken into account that the co- accused has already been granted bail by the trial Court and the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing, thereby entitling him to bail. The criminal antecedents of the applicant, as explained in Para No. 4(A) of the bail application, do not appear to be of such gravity so as to deny bail at this stage. It is also relevant that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in custody since 17.01.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Mohanlal Rathore @ Chhotu, involved in Crime No. 53/2026, registered at Police Station : Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 119(1), 326(G), 333, 3(5) of BNS., 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 5 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 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