1 2026:CGHC:23089 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4254 of 2026 Vijay Lohar S/o Satyapal Lohar Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kiloi, P.S. And Tehsil Rohtak, District- Rohtak (Haryana) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 884/2025 registered at Police Station Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 191(3) (as per FIR, wrongly written as 119(3) in bail order), 296(B), 351(3), 115(2), 111(2)(B), 324(4), 3(5) of B.N.S. 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Registry had pointed out a defect to the effect that in the bail rejection order, the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 offence under Section 119(3) of the B.N.S.S. had been wrongly mentioned along with other offences. It is submitted that the said defect has now been duly cured and a fresh certified copy of the bail rejection order has been filed before this Court. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that as projected by the complainant Saddam Khan, is that on 22.11.2025, one Sahil Khan called the complainant near Luchki Ghat, Kantiprakashpur, informing him that the Patwari and Revenue Inspector had come for measurement of the land and that a dispute had arisen at the spot. Upon reaching there, the complainant found that an altercation was taking place between the parties regarding the land measurement, which subsequently turned into a scufÒe. It is alleged that the present applicant, along with other co-accused persons, assaulted the complainant and other persons with sticks and other objects, causing injuries to them. Therefore, the aforesaid offences has been registered against the applicant along with co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged offences. It is submitted that the dispute in question arises out of a purely civil land dispute relating to demarcation and possession of land bearing Khasra Nos. 25/03, 20/04, 20/05, 34, 35, 37, 82 and 32/1 belonging to the father of co-accused Faizan Ahmed, namely Idris Ansari. It is further submitted that the complainant Saddam Khan, in collusion with the Revenue Inspector, got the land demarcated and reduced the size of the revenue map without affording any opportunity of hearing to 3 Idris Ansari, against which a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Sarguja, and vide order dated 01.07.2025, the effect and implementation of the demarcation report was stayed. Learned counsel submits that despite the stay order being in force, the complainant party, along with 20–25 persons and with the aid of a JCB machine, attempted to remove trees and forcibly encroach upon the land of Idris Ansari, whereupon co-accused Faizan Ahmed along with the present applicant reached the spot only to protect the possession and property of Idris Ansari. It is contended that the complainant party was the aggressor and had trespassed upon the land despite being aware of the subsisting stay order, due to which a sudden altercation and free fight took place between both sides in which injuries were sustained by persons from both parties. It is further submitted that a cross-FIR bearing Crime No. 877/2025 has also been lodged by Idris Ansari against the complainant party for assault and criminal intimidation, which clearly demonstrates that the incident was a mutual scufÒe arising out of the land dispute and not a unilateral assault by the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that there was no prior meeting of minds or premeditated intention on the part of the applicant to commit the alleged offences and that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. It is also submitted that one of the co-accused, namely Sagar alias Pahalwan, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2830/2026, and therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 4 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the applicant has two criminal antecedents, out of which one criminal case has been disclosed in paragraph No. 4(A) of the bail application, however, another criminal case relating to the offence of extortion has not been explained. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail application deserves to be rejected. However, she could not dispute the fact that one of the co-accused persons, namely Sagar alias Pahalwan, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2830/2026. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that the dispute appears to have arisen out of a land demarcation and possession dispute between both the parties, the fact that a cross- FIR has also been registered from the side of the applicant party, and further considering the fact that one of the co-accused persons, namely Sagar alias Pahalwan, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2830/2026, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in jail since 23.11.2025 and conclusion of trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 5 8. 5 8. Let the Applicant – Vijay Lohar, involved in Crime No. 884/2025 registered at Police Station Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 191(3) (as per FIR, wrongly written as 119(3) in bail order), 296(B), 351(3), 115(2), 111(2)(B), 324(4), 3(5) of B.N.S. 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the 6 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 her 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