1 CGHC010191422026 2026:CGHC:28430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6090 of 2026 Rajendra Pando S/o Dasu Ram Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Belsar Het Para, Police Out - Check Post- Dindo P/s Trikunda Distt- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Out Check Post - Dindo P/s Trikunda Distt- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 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.23/2025 registered at Police Station – Out Check Post - Dindo P/s Trikunda District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 3(5), of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.09 19:08:34 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.04.2025, the complainant, Magar Sai, lodged a merg intimation at Out-Post Dindo, Police Station Trikunda, stating that while he was fixing roof tiles on the house of Hira Sai along with his brother-in-law at his in-laws' village, at about 5:00 p.m., his brother-in-law informed him that a message had been received from his house that his son, Mukesh, who had gone to the forest with the present applicant, Rajendra Pando, for hunting wild boar, had sustained a gunshot injury. Upon receiving the information, the complainant immediately rushed home, where his daughter informed him that Mukesh and the present applicant had gone to the forest for hunting, and during the course of hunting, the applicant allegedly fired a shot which struck Mukesh on his back, resulting in his death. On the basis of the merg enquiry and the material collected during the investigation, the police registered an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the present applicant along with the co-accused. The applicant was arrested on 26.04.2025, and the investigation was thereafter carried out in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has been arraigned as an accused merely on the basis of suspicion and the theory of last seen together, without any direct or cogent evidence connecting him with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court and the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.04.2025, the 3 investigation has been completed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the witnesses. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the co-accused, Sohrab Ansari and Vindhyachal Kodaki, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 25.07.2025 and 16.09.2025 passed in MCRC No. 4500 of 2025 and MCRC No. 7429 of 2025, respectively, and the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing, further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.04.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 7. Let applicant, Rajendra Pando, involved in Crime No.23/2025 4 registered at Police Station – Out Check Post - Dindo P/s Trikunda District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 3(5), of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 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 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 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