1 2026:CGHC:15084 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2936 of 2026 • Vishal Dhruv S/o Maniram Dhruv Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 03 Mahamaya Para, Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. - Lormi, Distt.- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amit Matre, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01/04/2026 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.604/2025 registered at Police Station Lormi, District - Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 126(2), 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), 111 of BNS and 25 of Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant, along with his two brothers, namely Shom Kashyap and Khush Kashyap, used to run the Gup Chupp Shop. On 28.10.2025, all three brothers VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.04.02 12:57:03 +0530 2 opened the Gupchup Shop at around 06:00 PM complainant in a motorcycle, went to his brothers to call them and to go home along with them. That complainant was moving in front of his brothers, Gupchup Cart. Thereafter, at around 6:15 PM near Kamal Kirana Shop, the Applicant / Accused, along with other accused, started using abusive words and threatened the complainant brothers. The applicant/ accused has attacked one of his brother namely, Shom Kashyap, to which cousin Khush Kashyap, intervened. Consequently, both brothers got beaten and seriously injured by the applicant/ Accused along with other accused. The applicant/accused, Vishal Dhruv, has been implicated in Crime No. 604/2025, registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, for offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 126(2), 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 613, 111 of BNS and 25 of Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. The applicant is in jail since 30.10.2025. The charge-sheet has been filed and no further investigation is required, however, conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. He further submitted that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1292 of 2026, MCRC No.1631 of 2026 and MCRC No.2189 of 2026 vide orders dated 05.02.2026, 19.02.2026 and 10.03.2026, respectively and as such, on the ground of parity, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application. He also contended that charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been 3 granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1292 of 2026, MCRC No.1631 of 2026 and MCRC No.2189 of 2026 vide orders dated 05.02.2026, 19.02.2026 and 10.03.2026, respectively. It is further submitted that applicant is having one previous criminal antecedent bearing crime No. 223 of 2025 registered at Polie Station Lormi for offence under Section 296, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS, which is still pending for it’s conclusion and the allegation levelled against the present applicant is that he assaulted the injured with a iron road and that road has been seized from his possession, however, the medical reports of the injured persons indicate that both the injured, namely Kush Kashyap and Son Kashyap sustained injuries caused by hard and blunt objects, therefore, present applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 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, the fact that the conclusion of the trial may take some time and further that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1292 of 2026, MCRC No.1631 of 2026 and MCRC No.2189 of 2026 vide orders dated 05.02.2026, 19.02.2026 and 10.03.2026, respectively, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 7. 7. Let the Applicant- Vishal Dhruv, involved in Crime No.604/2025 registered at Police Station Lormi, District - Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 126(2), 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), 111 of BNS and 25 of Arms Act, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two 4 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, 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 copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaishali