1 CGHC010217112026 2026:CGHC:29104 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5122 of 2026 Suresh Kumar Omkar S/o Late Bhaiyaram Onkar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Arjuni P.S. Akaltara District Janjgir Champa C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ganesh Ram Burman, Advocate and Mr. Bidya Nand Mishra, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 0284/2026 registered at Police Station Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(3), 351(3), and 119(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (for short ‘BNS’) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Smt. Bina Devi Omkar, wife of the accused Suresh Omkar, resident of Village RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Arjuni, Ward No. 18, is a housewife and educated up to Class XII. It is alleged that on 21.05.2026 at about 7:00 a.m., while the complainant was present at her house along with her daughter Lisha Omkar, aged about 15 years, and son Yuvraj, aged about 14 years, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from her for consuming liquor and arranging a drinking party. Upon her refusal, the accused allegedly became enraged, abused her in filthy language referring to her mother and sister, pushed and physically assaulted her, and attempted to strangulate her. It is further alleged that when the children intervened to protect their mother, the accused scolded and threatened them with dire consequences, including death, directed them to leave the house and earn their livelihood as labourers, and chased them with a hoe. Thereafter, the children allegedly fled from the house and contacted the Police Emergency Service by dialing 112. With the assistance of the police, they reached Police Station Akaltara, where the complainant lodged a report seeking legal action against the accused. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 284 dated 21.05.2026 was registered at Police Station Akaltara for offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(3), 351(3), and 119(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the accused was subsequently arrested. Hence, the present bail application. 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 any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that the applicant is a law-abiding person residing with 3 his family consisting of his wife and two children and is the sole breadwinner of the family. It is further submitted that the incident, as alleged, arose out of a domestic dispute and a misunderstanding between the husband and wife during the course of a routine family conversation, which was unnecessarily magnified due to momentary anger and excitement and was neither intentional nor actuated by any criminal motive on the part of the applicant. It is further submitted that, subsequently, the complainant and the applicant, along with their children, have amicably resolved their differences and restored cordial matrimonial relations, and the family is now living peacefully. However, while considering the earlier bail application, the learned court below failed to take into account the subsequent reconciliation and settlement between the parties and rejected the application primarily on the basis of the allegations contained in the FIR. It is further contended that even if the prosecution story is taken at its face value, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(3), 351(3) and 119(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not attracted against the applicant. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedent, he is in jail since 21.05.2026, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the 4 competent Court. She further submits that the allegations levelled against the applicant are serious in nature and disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It is submitted that, as per the prosecution case, the applicant, under the influence of liquor, subjected his wife to physical assault, abused her in filthy language, attempted to strangulate her, and also threatened and intimidated his minor children when they intervened to protect their mother. The conduct attributed to the applicant reflects a violent and aggressive disposition, thereby causing fear and insecurity within the family. She further submits that the FIR was lodged promptly and the allegations are supported by the statements of the complainant and other witnesses collected during the course of investigation. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the offence, and the possibility of the applicant influencing or pressurising the complainant and other material witnesses, who are closely related to him and reside in the same household, no case for grant of bail is made out. Therefore, it is prayed that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 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, nature and gravity of offence that though the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence, but also considering the fact that the injured has received injuries which are simple in nature not in a grievous injuries, further the applicant has no criminal 5 antecedent, he is in jail since 21.05.2026, and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, and conclusion of the trial may take some time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant- Suresh Kumar Omkar, involved in Crime No. 0284/2026 registered at Police Station Akaltara, District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(3), 351(3), and 119(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 6 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 Rahul Dewangan