1 2026:CGHC:8797 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1631 of 2026 Arun Anant S/o Gopal Das Anant Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Semriya, P.S. And Tah. Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Mahima Tandan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/02/2026 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 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 126(2), 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), 111 of BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.10.2025 at about 6:15 PM, the complainant, Kamal Kashyap, along with his brother Som Kashyap and cousin Kush Kashyap, was returning from Lormi after carrying out their business of operating snack carts. When they reached Main Road Ranigaon near Kamal Kirana Store, they were allegedly intercepted by the present Applicant along with co-accused persons. It is alleged that co-accused Vishal Dhruv, armed with an iron rod, and Prem Sarathi, armed with a blade, wrongfully restrained the victims and began abusing them in obscene language. Thereafter, Vishal Dhruv allegedly assaulted Som Kashyap by striking him on the head with the iron rod, causing a grievous and life-threatening injury. When Kush Kashyap attempted to intervene, he too was allegedly assaulted with the iron rod, resulting in injury to his left wrist. On the basis of the oral report lodged by the complainant at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.), FIR bearing Crime No. 604/2025 was registered on 28.10.2025 at 20:36 hours under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 296, 3(5), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation, Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), 111 of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act were further added. After completion of preliminary investigation, the present Applicant was arrested. The regular bail application preferred by the Applicant before the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions 3 Judge, Mungeli, being Bail Application No. 357/2025, was rejected on 31.12.2025 considering the gravity of the offence and the alleged involvement of the Applicant in a pre-planned conspiracy. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. She further submits that one of the identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Chhotu Dhruw has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2026 in MCRC No.1292 of 2026. The applicant is in jail since 28.10.2025, so far as criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2023 under Section 363 of the IPC/BNS, which is pending as mentioned in para 4A of the bail application preferred on behalf of the applicant, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that allegedly the applicant in connivance with other co-accused persons, wrongfully restrained the complainant and his companions on 28.10.2025 at Main Road Ranigaon and, in furtherance of a pre-planned conspiracy, participated in assaulting them, it is also alleged that 4 the co-accused, armed with an iron rod and blade, caused grievous and life-threatening injuries to Som Kashyap and injuries to Kush Kashyap, and the present applicant with common intention, actively participated in the alleged offence. Moreover, the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2023 under the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2023 under Section 363 of the IPC/BNS, which is pending as mentioned in para 4A of the bail application preferred on behalf of the applicant, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of 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 since 28.10.2025, the fact that though the applicant in connivance with other co-accused persons, wrongfully restrained the victims and, sharing common intention, participated in the assault in which grievous injuries were caused to Som Kashyap, however considering the fact that one of the co-accused persons, namely, Chhotu Dhruw has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2026 in MCRC No.1292 of 2026 and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused person, also considering the criminal antecedent of the applicant, which is of the year 2023 and the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be 5 released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Arun Anant, 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 Section 25 of the Arms Act, 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, 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. 6 (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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil