1 CGHC010172432026 2026:CGHC:29436 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4156 of 2026 Angad Singh S/o Late Vinod Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o 202/1 Street No. 3, Kali Mata Ward No. 30, P.S. Pandri, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S. Civil Lines, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-Applicant Along with MCRC No. 4219 of 2026 Sunil Kumar Pandey S/o Santram Pandey Aged About 35 Years R/o Kunda, Kotila Akhtyari, Shekhpur Ashiq, District Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Present Address - Near Sai Public School, Katora Talab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.07.2026 1. Since the above-mentioned two first bail applications arise out of same incident, same crime number and registered at same police station, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 122/2026, registered at Police Station : Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 351(2), 204, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 25, 27 & 30 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the complainant, Smt. Janki Yadu, at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, it was alleged that she runs a salon under the name “FZ Salon” situated at Arora Tower, Katora Talab, Raipur. On 25.02.2026, between 10:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m., while the complainant, her daughter Mansi Yadu and her daughter’s friend Savita were having dinner inside the salon, two unknown persons entered the premises and introduced themselves as police personnel from Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that one of them took out pistols from his pocket, questioned the complainant regarding the activities of the salon, demanded her personal mobile number and thereafter allegedly asked her to provide massage therapy 3 services. Upon her refusal, stating that she was a cancer patient and medically advised not to perform such therapy, one of the accused allegedly fired a shot, which struck the counter, and further threatened the complainant with dire consequences, including death, if she did not comply with their demands. On the basis of the said complaint, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur registered Crime No. 122/2026 for offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 351(2), 204 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Arms Act. During the course of investigation, the memorandum statement of the accused persons was recorded, the alleged articles were seized in accordance with law, and both the applicants were arrested on 26.02.2026. Hence, these bail applications. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that Applicant, Sunil Kumar Pandey, is a retired personnel of the Indian Army who has served the nation with distinction and has been awarded various medals during his service tenure. After retirement, he has been working as a security personnel with Hira Group of Companies, Raipur. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the applicants and that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, wherein the applicants have subsequently been implicated on the basis of a faulty and biased investigation. It is further submitted that the allegations made by the complainant are exaggerated, fabricated 4 and based on conjectures. According to the defence, the applicants had visited the concerned establishment for massage therapy/physiotherapy and were merely waiting for their turn. During that time, the licensed firearm carried by Applicant, Sunil Kumar Pandey accidentally discharged due to a mechanical malfunction while it was being handled, whereafter he immediately secured the weapon and removed the ammunition in accordance with the safety protocols imparted to him during his military service. It is also submitted that neither of the applicants pointed any firearm at the complainant, threatened her, impersonated police personnel, nor committed any act endangering human life. It is further submitted that no injury was caused to any person and the CCTV footage, which has already been circulated on social media, does not support the prosecution version and rather demonstrates the absence of any criminal intent, threat or overt act on the part of the applicants. He further submits that Applicant, Angad Singh, was merely accompanying Applicant, Sunil Kumar Pandey and no specific overt act has been attributed to him except his presence at the spot. It is also submitted that Applicant Sunil Kumar Pandey is a valid holder of an arms licence having all-India validity and was lawfully authorized to possess the firearm. It is also submitted that the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents and are in jail since, 26.02.2026, the charge sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 5 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State vehemently opposes the bail applications and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present cases. She further submits that the applicants are involved in a serious offence wherein they entered the complainant’s salon during late hours, falsely represented themselves as police personnel from Uttar Pradesh, intimidated the complainant and created an atmosphere of fear and terror. It is submitted that during the course of the incident, a firearm was used and a shot was fired inside the premises, thereby endangering the lives and safety of the persons present therein. She further submits that the investigation has revealed sufficient material connecting the applicants with the commission of the alleged offences and the statements of the complainant and other witnesses duly support the prosecution case. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations, the manner in which the incident was committed, and the possibility of influencing witnesses or adversely affecting the course of trial, she prays that the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicants, the fact that no injury was caused to any person during the alleged incident, the defence plea that the firearm in question is a licensed weapon and that the alleged discharge of fire was accidental, the fact that Applicant, Sunil Kumar Pandey, is a retired Army personnel having rendered 6 long and distinguished service to the nation and is presently employed, the limited role attributed to Applicant, Angad Singh. Further the considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, they have no previous criminal antecedents, and the applicants are in jail since 26.02.2026, and and conclusion of the trial may take some time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail in theses cases. 8. Accordingly, the bail applications of the applicants are allowed. Let the Applicants – Angad Singh and Sunil Kumar Pandey, involved in Crime No. 122/2026, registered at Police Station : Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 351(2), 204, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 25, 27 & 30 of the Arms Act, 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 file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, 7 without sufficient 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 fixed 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 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 9. 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 Rahul Dewangan