Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21911 (CHH)

RAVI TONDEY v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/4606/2026 · 2026-06-14

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:23909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4606 of 2026 1 - Ravi Tondey S/o Sushil Tondey Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dunda Police Station, Mujgahan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Supriya Upasne,Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 15/06/2026 This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The applicant's first bail application had been dismissed on merits by the Court vide order dated 02.04.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2 2080/2025. Thereafter, the applicant has filed the second bail application which was also dismissed on 09.10.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 7959/2025 on the ground that the trial had substantially progressed and 13 out of 20 prosecution witnesses had already been examined, Consequently, the present third bail application came to be considered. 2. The applicant has remained in judicial custody since 28.05.2024 in connection with Crime No. 319/2024, registered at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant had sustained injuries during the same incident and that, while in custody, his physical condition had progressively deteriorated. It was further contended that the applicant had repeatedly required hospitalisation and considering his prolonged incarceration since 28.05.2024 and his medical condition, he deserved to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the last date of hearing, this Court had directed the State counsel to place on record a detailed medical report concerning the applicant's medical status, physical condition, and the necessity of any further treatment. 5. In compliance with the said direction, the State has submitted the report of the Medical Officer, Raipur. The report discloses that the applicant had been examined by the Department of Neurosurgery at 3 D.K. Super Specialty Hospital, Raipur, on 15.05.2026. Upon evaluation by specialist doctors, appropriate treatment had been administered and the applicant had been advised to undergo a follow-up examination after two months. The report further indicated that the applicant's condition had improved considerably and was presently satisfactory. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the earlier two bail applications of the applicant had already been rejected on merits. It was also argued that the trial was nearing completion and that the applicant is receiving regular medical treatment through the jail authorities at D.K. Super Specialty Hospital. In view of the improvement in his medical condition, it was contended that no exceptional circumstance existed warranting his release on bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the bail application. 8. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the evidence collected during investigation, and the fact that the previous bail applications of the applicant have already been dismissed on merits and further the fact that the trial was in progress, 13 out of 20 prosecution witnesses had already been examined and taking into account the medical report dated 27.05.2026 issued by the Medical Officer, D.K. Super Specialty Hospital, Raipur, which recorded that the applicant's condition had improved and was satisfactory, the Court found no justification to enlarge the applicant on bail at that stage. 9. Accordingly, the third bail application was rejected. However, 4 considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant and the advanced stage of the proceedings, the learned Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.06.18 12:52:24 +0530