1 CGHC010330722026 2026:CGHC:38124 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7886 of 2026 Hariom Sonkar S/o - Late Ram Lal Sonkar Aged About 47 Years R/o - Ramkund Near Khatu Shyam Mandir P. S. - Azad Chowk District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Azad Chowk District - Raipur (C. G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gangawani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2026 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.42/2026 registered at Police Station – Azad Chowk District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 296, 111, 351(3), 127(8), 115(2), 117(2), 61, 140(1) 310(2) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.08.25 16:32:06 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that it is alleged that during the period from 16.02.2026 to 19.02.2026, between 18:00 hours and 15:00 hours, at or near 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. It is further alleged that, in furtherance of the said common object, the applicant and other co-accused persons, armed with deadly weapons, including a pistol with magazine and sticks, used force and violence and thereby committed rioting. It is also alleged that the applicant and other co-accused persons abused Jeevan Yadav and Rakesh Sharma in obscene language, including abusive remarks concerning their mother and sister, thereby outraging their modesty and causing humiliation to them and the persons who heard the said abuses. Further, it is alleged that the applicant/accused and other co-accused persons attempted to kill Jeevan Yadav and Rakesh Sharma with the intention of causing terror. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present case was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 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 offence, and there is no credible material or evidence connecting him with the commission of the crime. It is submitted that the applicant has absolutely no role in the alleged incident and was neither a part of the occurrence nor present at 3 the alleged place of incident. Learned counsel further submits that, in fact, the applicant Jeevan Yadav had advanced a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to Jitendra Patel, and when Jitendra Patel demanded repayment thereof, he called the applicant near Karbala Pond on 16.02.2026, where a quarrel took place between Jitendra Patel, his friends and Jeevan Yadav over some issue, which was subsequently settled. Thereafter, on 19.02.2026, both parties again met near Gorahi Pond in connection with the said monetary transaction, and the applicant happened to be present there, on account of which he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that although the complainant was allegedly required to recover an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from Jitendra Yadav and it is alleged that during the incident Jitendra Yadav took the complainant to his house on 17.02.2026 and kept him illegally confined, Jitendra Yadav has not been made an accused in the present case, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. Learned counsel further submits that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicant, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has been in custody since 20.02.2026. It is also submitted that the applicant is the sole earning member of his family and his continued incarceration is causing great hardship to his family. Further, similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 27.07.2026 passed in MCRC No.6720/2026 and 18.08.2026 passed in MCRC No.7643/2026, and four other co-accused persons have also been granted bail by the learned Sessions Court. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, 4 belongs to a respectable family, is a law-abiding citizen, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of detention, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of any seizure from the applicant and the grant of bail to the co-accused persons, it is prayed that the applicant may kindly be released on bail. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate security and abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has 13 criminal antecedents and, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 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, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the fact that the co-accused, namely Kamaran Abbas has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.. No. 6720 of 2026 vide order dated 27.07.2026, and that the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing, and further considering that the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and he has been in judicial custody since 20.02.2026, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let applicant, Hariom Sonkar, involved in Crime No.42/2026 5 registered at Police Station – Azad Chowk District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 296, 111, 351(3), 127(8), 115(2), 117(2), 61, 140(1) 310(2) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 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 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 6 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 vaibhav