1 CGHC010330682026 2026:CGHC:38566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7895 of 2026 1 - Shyamlal Sarthi S/o Kedaram Sarthi Aged About 54 Years R/o House No. 123, Ward No.8, Jogideepa Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Ramakant Minj S/o Nankiram Minj Aged About 42 Years R/o House No.77, Tanki Basti, Kosamanara Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Anuj Bhagat S/o Shyamlal Bhagat Aged About 39 Years R/o Fundurdihari, Police Station- Gandhinagar, Ambikapur. District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police, Station- Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01/09/2026 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 139/2026 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 333, 61(2), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case in brief is that on 21.04.2026, the complainant Surendra lodged a written report before the concerned police station alleging therein that at about 12:30 PM, six unknown persons came to his house claiming themselves to be members of a Human Rights Organization, forcibly entered and searched his house and after finding an empty container filled with water, accused him of manufacturing liquor. It is further alleged that the said persons threatened the complainant with implication in a criminal case and demanded Rs.20,000/-, out of which, due to fear, the complainant paid Rs.4,000/- in cash. On the basis of the said report, Crime No.139/2026 was initially registered against unknown persons and during investigation, the present applicants were arrested on 22.04.2026. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that each of the applicants have one criminal antecedent of similar nature, which has been duly disclosed and explained in the bail application. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants have been implicated subsequently, whereas their names do not find place in the FIR which was initially lodged against unknown persons. It is also submitted that the alleged recovery of Rs.4,000/- has been made jointly from the applicants and there is no specific recovery attributable to any individual 3 applicant. He further submits that co-accused Anila Aishwarya Minj has already been granted bail in another crime bearing Crime No.45/2026 in which the applicants have also been made accused and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that each of the applicants has one criminal antecedent of similar nature, which is still pending. It is further submitted that a joint seizure of Rs.4,000/- has been effected from the applicants and the allegations against them are serious in nature. However, he submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed but considering the seriousness of the allegations and the criminal antecedents of the applicants, they are not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants, the fact that during investigation, the alleged recovery of Rs.4,000/- has been made jointly from the applicants and further considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, coupled with the fact that each of the applicants has one criminal antecedent of similar nature which has been disclosed and explained in the bail application and further considering that co-accused Anila Aishwarya Minj has already been 4 granted bail in Crime No.45/2026 in which the applicants have also been made accused, I am of the considered view that the applicants may be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicants – Shyamlal Sarthi, Ramakant Minj and Anuj Bhagat involved in Crime No. 139/2026 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 333, 61(2), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on 5 the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberated 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 them in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal