1 CGHC010318922026 2026:CGHC:36825 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7643 of 2026 Sheikh Shakeel S/o Sheikh Kallu Aged About 38 Years R/o Ramkund Near Satbahniya Mandir P.S. Azad Chowk District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Azad Chowk District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gangwani, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2026 1. This is the .rst bail application .led 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. 42/2026 registered at Police Station- Azad Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the o8ence punishable under Sections 308(5), 296, 111, 351(3), 127(8), 115(2), 117(2), 61, 140(1), and 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that it is alleged that during the period from 16.02.2026 to 19.02.2026, at the premises of Ghorai Talab, Ramkund, Kundra, situated at Om Society, Sunder Nagar, at the house of Jitendra alias Jawa Sonkar, Ramkund, Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, the applicant/accused, along with other co-accused persons, formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of kidnapping the complainants, namely, Jeevan Yadav and Rakesh Sharma, committing extortion and assaulting them. In furtherance of the said common object, the applicant and other co-accused persons allegedly used force and violence, committed rioting while being armed with deadly weapons, including a pistol with magazine and sticks, and abused the complainants in obscene and derogatory language referring to their mother and sister, thereby outraging their modesty and causing alarm and humiliation. It is further alleged that the applicant, along with the co-accused persons, attempted to cause the death of complainants Jeevan Yadav and Rakesh Sharma with the intention of creating terror. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the applicant has been implicated in the present case and has preferred the instant bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent, having neither committed nor participated in the alleged o8ence. He further submits that the applicant had no role in the alleged incident and was neither a participant in the occurrence nor present at the alleged place of incident in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It 3 is submitted that the actual dispute arose in connection with an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- allegedly advanced as loan by Jeevan Yadav to Jitendra Patel, and on 16.02.2026, Jitendra Patel called the applicant near Karbala Pond, where a quarrel took place between Jitendra Patel and his associates and Jeevan Yadav over some issue, which was subsequently settled. Thereafter, on 19.02.2026, both parties again met near Ghorahi Pond in connection with the said monetary transaction, and merely because the applicant was present at the spot, he has been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that though the prosecution alleges that the complainant was to recover an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from Jitendra Yadav and that during the incident he was taken to Jitendra Yadav’s house on 17.02.2026 and allegedly kept there illegally, Jitendra Yadav has not been arrayed as an accused, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. He further submits that no incriminating article or material has been seized from the possession of the applicant and that the injuries sustained by the complainants are simple in nature. It is also submitted that out of the co-accused persons, as many as .ve persons have already been granted bail, four of them by the learned Trial Court and one co-accused by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2026 passed in MCRC No.6720/2026, copies of which are placed on record as Annexure A/4. He also submits that the applicant has only one previous criminal antecedent under the Arms Act which is pending and he is in jail since 10.04.2026, the charge- sheet has been .led before the competent Court and the trial is 4 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 been .led before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail by this Court as well as trial Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. She further submits that the applicant is speci.cally named in the prosecution case and is alleged to have actively participated in the incident along with the other co-accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly, assaulting the complainants and threatening them with deadly weapons. Hence, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material available on record, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court .nds that the applicant is in jail since 10.04.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been .led before the competent Court. It is also relevant to note that the injuries sustained by the complainants are simple in nature. Further, out of the co-accused persons, .ve persons have already been enlarged on bail, out of whom four have been granted bail by the learned Trial 5 Court and one co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2026 passed in MCRC No.6720/2026. The applicant has also stated that no incriminating article has been seized from his possession and that he has no speci.c role in the alleged occurrence. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the period of incarceration, the .ling of the charge-sheet, the nature of injuries and the fact that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Sheikh Shakeel, involved in Crime No. 42/2026 registered at Police Station- Azad Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the o8ence punishable under Sections 308(5), 296, 111, 351(3), 127(8), 115(2), 117(2), 61, 140(1), and 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 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:- (i) The applicant shall .le an undertaking to the e8ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates .xed 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 .xed, either personally or through 6 his counsel. In case of his absence, without suHcient 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 .xed 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 .xed 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 suHcient 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. OHce is directed to provide a certi.ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan