1 CGHC010331952026 2026:CGHC:38615 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.8068 of 2026 1 - Ramakant Minj S/o Nankiram Minj Aged About 42 Years R/o House No.77, Tanki Basti, Kosamanara, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) (Age And Address Father's Name Wrongly Mentioned In Annx. A/1) 2 - Shyamlal Sarthi S/o Kedaram Sarthi Aged About 54 Years R/o House No.123, Ward No.8, Jogideepa, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) (Address And Father's Name Wrongly Mentioned In Annx. A/1) 3 - Anuj Bhagat S/o Shyamlal Bhagat Aged About 39 Years R/o Fundurdihari, Police Station- Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (Age And Address Wrongly Mentioned In Annx. A/1) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.09.01 15:43:55 +0530 2 _____________________________________________________ For Applicants :Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Sourabh Sahu, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2026 1. The Applicants have preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.45/2026 registered at Police Station – Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 308(2), 333, 119(1), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Angad S/o Shivratan Ram, lodged a written complaint against unknown persons alleging that on 20.04.2026 at about 11:00 a.m., while he was at his house along with his wife, four men and a woman arrived in a white vehicle, wearing black coats. They allegedly enquired about his occupation and demanded a licence. When the complainant stated that he did not possess any licence but had a document relating to his traditional practice, they allegedly told him that the document was of no use and demanded Rs.3,00,000/-, threatening that otherwise he and his wife would be sent to jail. It is further 3 alleged that the woman slapped the complainant's wife and forcibly entered the house and took away Rs.50,000/- in cash from the almirah. Accordingly, the offences as mentioned above were registered against the Applicant. Hence this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, the names of the Applicants do not find mention therein and the Applicants are members of the Anti-Crime Anti-Corruption Human Rights Organization (ACACHRO) and were allegedly performing their duties in connection with the said organization. It is further submitted that there was no demand of Rs.3,00,000/- by the Applicants and that the complainant has lodged a false case to avoid proceedings against him for allegedly carrying on business without a licence. It is further submitted that no seizure has been made from the Applicants and co-accused Anila Aishwarya Minj has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2026 passed in MCRC No.5526/2026, the Applicants have one previous criminal antecedent of similar nature, however, the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed and the Applicants 4 are in custody since 30.04.2026, therefore, they may be released on bail on the ground of parity. 4. Contrarily, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, particularly the fact that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, no seizure has been made from the Applicants, co-accused Anila Aishwarya Minj has already been granted bail by this Court on 22.07.2026 in MCRC No.5526/2026 and the Applicants are similarly placed, the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed, the Applicants are in custody since 30.04.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application on the ground of parity. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let Applicants- Ramakant Minj, Shyamlal Sarthi and Anuj Bhagat involved in Crime No.45/2026 registered at Police Station – Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 308(2), 333, 119(1), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of 5 BNS 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 applicant/s shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she/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 applicant/s shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her/their counsel. In case of his/her/their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her/them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant/s misuse/s the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her/their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant/s fail/s to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her/them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant/s 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/s 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/her/them in accordance with law. 6 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 Priya