1 CGHC010246392026 2026:CGHC:27695 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5930 of 2026 Ramesh Kumar Sahu S/o Tusliram Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Ward No.08 Lohari, Piperpara Police Station Podi, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Out Post Podi, Bachara Police Station Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kukar Gulati, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.07.2026 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.127/2026 registered at Police Station – Out Post Podi, Bachara Police Station Baikunthpur, District- Koriya(C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 105,138 & 3(5) of the BNS 2023. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.06 17:53:00 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case in brief, is that, on the basis of merg intimation, the police investigated the matter with regard to the death of Bijendra Khairwar (wrongly written as Vijendra) and as per prosecution, on the date of incident i.e. on 24-02-2026, the applicant loaded the DJ in his pick-up and went to village Thagaon for the purposes of marriage and present applicant was returning along with Nandu, Rahul Ankit and Dinesh, a dispute arose with regard to playing the DJ. It is alleged that applicant and present applicant and other co-accused persons abducted the deceased Bijendra Khairwar and when the deceased was taken in a pick-up, he was pushed by the co-accused Nandkishore Yadav, on account of which Vijendra Khiarwar fell down from the pick- up and received injuries on his head and account of the injuries, sustained by Vijendra, he diedand the matter being investigated by the police and after the investigation the police arrested the applicant for the commission of the alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed the alleged offences. It is contended that the applicant had gone to Village Thaggaon along with the co-accused persons to play a DJ at a marriage function and, after the programme concluded at about 10:00 p.m., while they were returning, the deceased and his friend chased the vehicle being driven by the applicant, resulting in a dispute regarding further playing of the DJ. During the altercation, the deceased and his companion allegedly assaulted Rahul, and thereafter the co-accused abducted the deceased. It is submitted that while the vehicle was in motion, the deceased himself jumped from the vehicle, sustained grievous injuries, and died on the spot. Learned counsel 3 further submits that the deceased and his friend were the aggressors and no specific role has been attributed to the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. It is also contended that the legal heirs of the deceased have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chirmiri, wherein they have specifically pleaded that the deceased fell from the vehicle after its door opened while it was being driven by the applicant, thereby treating the incident as a motor vehicle accident. On the strength of the said pleadings, it is argued that the case is one of accidental death and does not attract the ingredients of Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is further submitted that co-accused Nand Kishore Yadav has already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 5471 of 2026 vide order dated 23.06.2026, and the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing. Learned counsel also submits that the allegations against the applicant are omnibus in nature, he has been in judicial custody since 19.04.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding, and he undertakes to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposes the bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, and the fact that the co-accused, namely Nand Kishore Yadav has already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 5471 of 2026 vide order dated 23.06.2026, and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 19.04.2026, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Ramesh Kumar Sahu, involved in Crime No.127/2026 registered at Police Station – Out Post Podi, Bachara Police Station Baikunthpur, District- Koriya(C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 105,138 & 3(5) of the BNS 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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 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 his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and 5 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 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav