1 CGHC010286902026 2026:CGHC:32640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6877 of 2026 Raja Parteti S/o Tejpal Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 22, Sugar Mill Tekdi, Sonakhar, Seoni Pranmoti, Police Station- Kundipuru, Tehsil And District- Chindwara (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- City Kotwali, District – Mahasamund (CG) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2026 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. 185/2024 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.04.2024 at about 01:00 A.M., the complainant, along with his family members and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 friends, had gone to Kesariya Dhaba, Mahasamund, for dinner. It is alleged that while some children accompanying the complainant were playing cricket in the parking area of the dhaba, certain employees of the dhaba objected to the same, which led to a verbal altercation between the parties. Thereafter, it is alleged that the dhaba owner, Randhir Singh Khanuja, along with other employees, reached the spot and, in furtherance of their common intention, abused and assaulted the complainant and his family members with fists, kicks, sword, iron rod, cricket bat and sticks, causing injuries to them. It is further alleged that the accused persons criminally intimidated the complainant party by threatening them with dire consequences and chased them from the spot. The prosecution further alleges that two members of the complainant’s family were wrongfully confined inside the dhaba premises, assaulted, and deprived of their mobile phone, gold chain and cash. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Crime No. 185/2024 was registered at Police Station Mahasamund against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, the present applicant, along with the other employees of the dhaba, was also implicated as one of the assailants. The investigation is stated to be pending. 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 on the basis of omnibus and general allegations, without there being any specific overt act attributed to him either in the FIR or in the material collected during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the owner of Dhaba had also lodged a counter FIR bearing Crime No. 184/2024 for 3 offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307, 323 and 506-B of the IPC, which clearly indicates that the incident arose out of a mutual altercation between both sides. He submits that the accused persons in the said counter case have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1233/2025 (Dheeraj Sarfraj) vide order dated 13.08.2025 and in MCRCA No. 600/2024 (Sahil Sarfaraz) vide order dated 12.06.2024. It is further contended that co-accused Dharmendra Kumar Yadav has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 973/2026 vide order dated 30.06.2026, while co-accused Harmeet Singh Khanuja and Randhir Singh Khanuja have also been granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 1071/2026 and MCRCA No. 1070/2026 respectively, both vide orders dated 13.07.2026. The case of the present applicant stands on identical footing and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of parity. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 11.07.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court, and could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that though the charge-sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court, but the accused persons in the counter case have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1233/2025 (Dheeraj Sarfraj) vide order dated 13.08.2025 and MCRCA No. 600/2024 (Sahil Sarfaraz) vide order dated 12.06.2024. Further, co-accused Dharmendra Kumar Yadav has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 973/2026 vide order dated 30.06.2026, while co-accused Harmeet Singh Khanuja and Randhir Singh Khanuja have also been granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 1071/2026 and MCRCA No. 1070/2026 respectively, both vide orders dated 13.07.2026. The case of the present applicant appears to stand on a footing similar to that of the aforesaid co-accused persons. Also considering that he has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 11.07.2026, and the conclusion of the trial will take some more time. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant – Raja Parteti, involved in Crime No. 185/2024 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 5 (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. 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 Rajshekhar