1 CGHC010267522026 2026:CGHC:31180 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6440 of 2026 Vishal Brijwani Urf Deenu S/o Kanhiyaalal Brijwani Aged About 26 Years R/o Nandi Chowk Tikrapara Raipur Tahsil and District- Raipur (C.G.) Latest Status- Gokul Nagar Gali. No.5 Raipur P.S. Tikrapara Dist- Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Tikrapara Commisionarate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aakash Aahuja, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 404/2026 (wrongly mentioned as Crime No.403/2026) registered at Police Station – Tikrapara Commisionarate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 119(1), 308(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant/accused allegedly demanded money from the complainant, Vishal Sonkar, abused and assaulted him, brandished a knife, forcibly took him to an ATM and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.23 13:20:28 +0530 2 compelled him to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/-, and also threatened to kill him. Thereafter, the police registered the case against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no direct or cogent evidence to substantiate the prosecution's allegation that the applicant committed the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant has five previous criminal antecedents, out of which two cases have been disposed of, in one case he has been acquitted, in one case he has been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine, and one case is still pending. The details of the said criminal antecedents have been duly explained in Part-D of the present bail application. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 10.05.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submitted that the applicant has five previous criminal antecedents which shows that he is habitual offender. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact 3 that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature, and further considering that the criminal antecedents of the applicant have been duly explained in Part - D of the present bail application, coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 10.05.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, I am inclined to allow this bail application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Vishal Brijwani Urf Deenu, involved in Crime No. 404/2026,(wrongly mentioned as Crime No.403/2026) registered at Police Station – Tikrapara Commisionarate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 119(1), 308(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 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. 4 (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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti