1 2026:CGHC:1185 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 129 of 2026 Vinay Verma S/o Gupendra Verma, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Kusmi, Police Station Chuikhadan, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Khairagarh- Chuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O0cer, Police Station- Gandai, District Khairagarh- Chuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.01.2026 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. 277/2025, registered at Police Station : Gandai, District- Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the o:ence punishable under Sections 109, 61(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) of the BNS and Section 3, 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.08.2025, the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 complainant Afsar Khan lodged a written report before the concerned Police Station alleging therein that on 10.08.2025, his wife had gone to her maternal house. Thereafter, on 12.08.2025, one villager informed the complainant that a parcel in his name had arrived at the shop of one Sultan, but the complainant ignored the information as he had not ordered any parcel. On the next day, the father of the complainant informed him telephonically that Sultan had stated that two boys had left the said parcel at his shop, however, the complainant again ignored the same. Subsequently, on 15.08.2025, the father of the complainant brought the parcel box from the shop of Sultan. After opening the parcel box, they found one home theatre sound box, and it was noticed that the plug was broken. Thereafter, upon opening the sound box from the back side, two red wires were found connected with a lead wire, which raised suspicion of a parcel bomb. On the basis of the said written report, the police registered an o:ence against two unknown persons. During the preliminary enquiry, it was con?rmed by the dog squad that the alleged articles were explosive substances, and accordingly, an o:ence was registered against unknown persons. During further investigation, the complainant expressed suspicion against the ex-boyfriend of his wife, i.e., the present applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested, and on the basis of his memorandum statement, six other co-accused persons were also arrested for the o:ences punishable under Sections 109, 61(2), 318(4), 338 and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he is a second-year student of I.T.I. at Government College, Dhamdha, having no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that, prima facie, the written report lodged by the complainant Afsar Khan itself appears suspicious, as no name was disclosed therein and the F.I.R. was initially registered against two unknown persons, and subsequently, without any cogent material, the present applicant along with six other accused persons has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that only one mobile phone and one motorcycle were seized on 17.08.2025 at the instance of the applicant, which have no direct or indirect nexus with the alleged o:ence. He further submits that the material witnesses, namely Dhananjay Shivvanshi, who was present at the Kirana shop of Sultan Sheikh at the relevant time, did not identify the applicant or co-accused Gopal Verma in the identi?cation memo dated 19.09.2025, and similarly, Sainaz Begum, who was also present at the shop, failed to identify the applicant or any of the accused persons. It is further submitted that no purchase bill of the alleged sound box was recovered by the prosecution, which is evident from the statement of Vikas Gupta, owner of M.S. Electronics, Durg, thereby weakening the prosecution case. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 16.08.2025, the charge-sheet has already been ?led, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. It is also submitted that all similarly placed co-accused persons, namely Ghasiram, Gopal Verma, Parmeshwar Verma, 4 Gopal Khairwar, Dilip Kumar Dhimar and Khilesh Verma, have already been granted bail by this Court, including the main co- accused from whom the alleged explosive and other articles were seized, namely Ghasiram (M.Cr.C. No. 9859/2025) and Gopal Verma (M.Cr.C. No. 10242/2025), so on the ground of parity, prolonged incarceration and lack of prima facie evidence, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has already been ?led before the competent Court. 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 o:ence and the fact that there are total seven accused persons including the present applicant out of which 06 co- accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused person, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent, he is in jail since 16.08.2025 and the charge-sheet has been ?led 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. 8. Let applicant, Vinay Verma, involved in Crime No. 277/2025, registered at Police Station : Gandai, District- Khairagarh- Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the o:ence punishable under 5 Sections 109, 61(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) of the BNS and Section 3, 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, 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 ?le an undertaking to the e:ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates ?xed 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 ?xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su0cient 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 ?xed 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 ?xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of 6 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without su0cient 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. O0ce is directed to send a certi?ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal