1 2026:CGHC:21491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3156 of 2026 Raju Sonkar S/o Shri Lalandhar Sonkar Aged About 39 Years R/o Chingrajpara, Police Station Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.05.2026 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. 241/2026 registered at Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 310(4)(5), 312, 61(2) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the name of the present applicant surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, wherein it has been alleged that the present applicant had provided information regarding the movements and residence of one Bandhu Maurya and had also facilitated the stay of the co-accused persons. It is further alleged that the co-accused persons had conspired to commit murder and robbery and had earlier attempted to execute the said plan on 18.12.2025, though the attempt remained unsuccessful, and thereafter they were allegedly involved in other criminal activities. The entire case against the present applicant is based solely upon the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons recorded during the course of investigation and there is no independent or corroborative evidence available on record connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that, owing to the sensitive nature of the case, the certified copy of the First Information Report could not be obtained. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the name of the applicant does not find place in the FIR and has surfaced subsequently only on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused persons, which are inadmissible in evidence except to the limited extent permissible under law. He further submits that there is no direct or independent evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and no 3 recovery whatsoever has been made from his possession, nor has any overt act been attributed to him. It is also submitted that, even as per the prosecution story, the role attributed to the applicant is merely of allegedly sharing information, which itself is unsubstantiated and based solely on hearsay statements of co- accused persons. He submits that the alleged offences in connected Crime No. 219/2026 relating to the Mahalaxmi Jewellers case do not involve the present applicant and no material has been placed on record to establish any nexus between the applicant and the said incident. It is further submitted that the implication of the applicant is mala fide and actuated by previous enmity with the complainant, namely Bandhu Maurya, inasmuch as the applicant had earlier lodged a complaint dated 26.11.2025 before the competent authorities regarding illegal obstruction over a public nistaari road, which was found to be correct and resulted in removal of encroachment, thereby causing financial and social loss to the complainant and giving rise to false implication of the applicant in the present case. He further submits that the documentary material pertaining to the said complaint clearly establishes prior dispute and motive for false implication. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant has been suffering from HIV since the year 2019 and is undergoing continuous medical treatment, and prolonged incarceration would seriously endanger his health as he requires regular medication, monitoring and specialized medical care, which is not adequately available in jail. He further submits that this Hon’ble Court has 4 consistently adopted a humanitarian and constitutional approach in cases of similarly situated HIV-positive accused persons and has granted bail on medical grounds. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 2290/2025 (Raju Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 22.04.2025 and MCRC No. 6383/2025 (Mohammad Ismail Ansari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 21.08.2025, wherein bail was granted considering the medical condition of the applicants being HIV positive. It is submitted that the case of the present applicant stands on a much better footing inasmuch as there is no direct recovery from him, his implication is based solely on memorandum statements of co-accused persons and his medical condition requires continuous and specialized care. He further submits that the present applicant has four previous criminal antecedents and all the cases are disposed of and the applicant has already been acquitted, he is in jail since 23.02.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that during the course of investigation, sufÏcient material has been collected indicating the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence and his name surfaced on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused persons as well as other circumstances collected during investigation. It is further submitted 5 that the applicant had actively assisted the co-accused persons by providing information regarding the movements and residence of Bandhu Maurya and by facilitating their stay, thereby playing an important role in the alleged conspiracy relating to the commission of serious offences including murder and robbery. He further submits that the offences alleged against the applicant are grave and serious in nature and the investigation has revealed his nexus with the co-accused persons involved in organized criminal activities. It is also submitted that merely because no direct recovery has been effected from the applicant, the same cannot be a ground for grant of bail when other incriminating material is available on record against him. With regard to the medical condition of the applicant, learned State counsel submits that adequate medical treatment can be provided to him in accordance with law while in judicial custody. He also submits that the applicant has four criminal antecedents, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the material collected during investigation and the active role attributed to the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into account that the name of the present applicant does not appear in the FIR and that his implication is primarily based upon 6 the memorandum statements of co-accused persons, coupled with the fact that no direct recovery has been effected from his possession and no specific overt act has been attributed to him except the allegation of providing information to the co-accused persons. This Court has also given thoughtful consideration to the medical condition of the applicant, who is stated to be suffering from HIV since the year 2019 and undergoing continuous medical treatment. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the said medical condition of the applicant has been duly verified by the State authorities and has been found to be correct. It has further been brought on record that the applicant requires regular medical supervision, continuous medication and specialized treatment for proper management of his health condition. In such circumstances, prolonged incarceration of the applicant may adversely affect his health and well-being. Further the fact that though the charge-sheet has not been filed till date, but the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.02.2026, he has four previous criminal antecedents and all the case are disposed of and in all the cases, the applicant has already been acquitted, and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and particularly the verified medical condition of the applicant, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Raju Sonkar, involved in Crime No. 241/2026 registered at Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 310(4)(5), 312, 61(2) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 25 & 27 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 sufÏcient 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 8 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 him in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan