1 2026:CGHC:4743 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 930 of 2026 1 - Teksingh Sonwani S/o Darash Sonwani Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh (Details Of The Applicant Mentioned As Per The Charge Sheet) 2 - Dhiraj Kumar S/o Darash Sonwani Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh (Details Of The Applicant Mentioned As Per The Charge Sheet) 3 - Suryaprakash Sonwani S/o Ramkumar Sonwani Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh (Details Of The Applicant Mentioned As Per The Charge Sheet) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O - Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. This is the :rst bail application :led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 506/2025 registered at Police Station- RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the o>ence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Pradip Miri, lodged a report before the concerned Police Station alleging that he runs a grocery shop in his village and that on 04.08.2025 at about 08:30 p.m., while he was closing his shop and tying a rope in front of it, applicant No.1, Tek Singh Sonwani, came to the shop and demanded certain goods. Upon being informed that the shop was closed and that he could purchase the goods from another shop, applicant No.1 allegedly became abusive, threatened to kill the complainant, and assaulted him. It is further alleged that thereafter applicant No.1 called the other applicants, who collectively assaulted the complainant with hands, :sts, and sticks, and that when the complainant’s wife, Mongara Bai, and his son, Shiva Miri, intervened, they were also assaulted. On the basis of the said allegations, the present case has been registered, hence the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent villagers and have been falsely implicated in the case. The incident in question arose out of a sudden altercation and there was no pre-planning or intention on the part of the applicants to assault the complainant or his family members. It is submitted that, in fact, the complainant and his family members, who are allegedly involved in illegal liquor activities, were the aggressors and assaulted applicant No.1, compelling the applicants 3 to act in self-defence, during which the applicants themselves also sustained injuries. It is further submitted that FIRs were lodged from both sides and initially o>ences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS were registered against both parties, however, subsequently and by way of afterthought, Section 109 of the BNS was added only against the present applicants. The main allegation of use of a stick is attributed only to one accused, namely Ramkumar, and not to all the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants are in jail since 04.12.2025, charge-sheet has already been :led, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been :led in the present case. He further submits that the allegations against the applicants are serious in nature, as the complainant and his family members were subjected to a brutal assault by the applicants acting in concert. It is contended that the applicants abused, threatened to kill, and assaulted the complainant with hands, :sts and sticks, and even extended the assault to his wife and minor son when they attempted to intervene. The injuries sustained by the victims have been opined to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life, which clearly reEects the violent conduct of the applicants. Considering the gravity of the o>ence, the manner of assault, and the potential threat to public peace and safety, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon perusal of the case diary, it emerges that the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel between the parties and that cross FIRs were lodged from both sides, wherein initially o>ences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS were registered against both the parties, and Section 109 of the BNS was subsequently added only against the present applicants, which prima facie requires deeper appreciation at the stage of trial. Further, the applicants are in jail since 04.12.2025, the charge-sheet has already been :led and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the overall circumstances including the existence of a cross case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Teksingh Sonwani, Dhiraj Kumar and Suryaprakash Sonwani, involved in Crime No. 506/2025 registered at Police Station- Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the o>ence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall :le an undertaking to the e>ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 5 :xed 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date :xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without suGcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date :xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates :xed 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 applicants are deliberate or without suGcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. OGce is directed to provide a certi:ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan