1 CGHC010263212026 2026:CGHC:36849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6452 of 2026 Rahul Singh S/o Vinod Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Mayapur P.S. Kotwali Ambikapur Distt- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Kotwali Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 320/2026 registered at Police Station – Kotwali Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 296(b), 126(2) & 3(5) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.05.2026, the complainant, VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.08.19 11:44:37 +0530 2 namely Akash Jaiswal, who is a District News Reporter of Bharat National News, was allegedly stopped on his way by Rahul Singh, resident of Mayapur, who assaulted him. The complainant thereafter reported the incident at Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, and was medically examined at the concerned hospital. It is further alleged that, while the complainant was returning from the Police Station, Rahul Singh, along with co-accused Golu Pandit, again wrongfully restrained his way, abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with hands and fists, belt and rod. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) registered Crime No. 320/2026 on 17.05.2026 for offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 351(3), 115(2), 126(2), 118(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and investigation was commenced. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the incident arose out of a dispute regarding a vehicle collision between the applicant and the complainant, pursuant to which a scuffle took place and both parties went to the police station for lodging their respective reports, but the complaint of the applicant was not taken by the police due to the influence of the complainant, who is a District News Reporter. It is further submitted that the applicant is 32 years of age, has been in judicial custody since 15.06.2026, and is the sole earning member of his family, which is dependent upon him for its livelihood. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his absconding. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant 3 may kindly be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has five previous criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. Therefore, considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant and the stage of investigation, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, the period of detention, as the applicant has been in judicial custody since 15.06.2026, the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Rahul Singh, involved in Crime No. 320/2026 registered at Police Station – Kotwali Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 296(b), 126(2) & 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on his 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 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 4 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 his 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. 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 Vaibhav