1 2026:CGHC:395 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9644 of 2025 1 - Akshay Chaturvedi S/o Malikram Chaturvedi, Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 67, Sunahare Gully, Ameri, Thana- Sakri District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Vinayak Sunahare S/o Shivkumar Sunahare Aged About 29 Years (Wrongly Mention As Vijay Kumar Sunahare In Bail Rejection Order) R/o House No. 13, Sunaharepara, Village Ameri, Thana Sakri District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Mateen Siddqui, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.01.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.672/2025, registered at Police Station – Sakri, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115, 119(1) and 191(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that on 16.09.2025 around 9:45 PM, the complainant was going to back to his home from his office. On the way to his home the complainant went to Uday Kirana Store to buy some tomatoes however the shopkeeper closed the shop therefore he denied the VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.01.06 17:59:03 +0530 2 complainant to reopen the shop. The complainant started his bike to go back to his house. In between the applicant No.2 Vinayak Sunahare approached the complainant who was drinking alcohol and started asking for the money to do party to which the complainant denied to give any to him and the applicant No.2 Vinayak Sunahare started abusing the complainant and also called the present applicant no 1. The applicant No.2 Vinayak Sunahare and the present applicant no 1 with the help of the other co-accused started beating the complainant with pipe and sticks due to which the complainant received injuries on his left ears, head, behind the head, left hand & shoulder and left leg. Due to hustle with the present applicants and other co-accused the complainant fell down and the present applicants and others snatch the mobile and Rs 4000/- from the complainant. And somehow the complainant ran away and when the complainant reached his house, the complainant's mothers told him that the some person came to his house and banging on the door and abusing the complainant and further threaten them to kill the complainant. Therefore, the FIR has been registered Under Section 296, 351(2), 115, 119(1) & 191(2) read with section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has been registered against the present applicants. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that affidavit has also been filed regarding the criminal antecedents of the applicants, which goes to show that there are total six criminal antecedents registered against the applicant No.1, out of which only three cases pending against him and applicant No.2 have total eight criminal antecedents, out of which only two cases are pending for their conclusion. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicants are in jail since 22.09.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application 3 and submits that there is there are total six criminal antecedents registered against the applicant No.1, out of which only three cases pending against him and applicant No.2 have total eight criminal antecedents, out of which only two cases are pending for their conclusion, it appears that applicants are habitual offender and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that applicants are in jail since 22.09.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, looking to the detention period of the applicants, I am inclined to allow this application of the applicants. 7. Let applicants, Akshay Chaturvedi and Vinayak Sunahare, involved in Crime No.672/2025, registered at Police Station – Sakri, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115, 119(1) and 191(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), 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, 4 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 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. 8. 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