1 CGHC010311052026 2026:CGHC:38877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.8193 of 2026 Sameer Tandon S/o Shri Harishwar Tandon Aged About 19 Years R/o Dhuma, P.S. Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Ms. Ritika Verma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.461/2026 registered at Police Station – Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.09.02 17:36:26 +0530 2 under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3), 333, 324(2), 326(G), 191(1) and 191(2) of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 20.06.2026, the Applicant/accused, along with other co-accused persons, went to the plot of Rakesh Gupta where the complainant and other injured persons, who were residents of Bihar, were working and asked them to open the gate. When they refused to do so, the Applicant and his associates allegedly forcibly entered the plot by scaling the gate and abused and assaulted the complainant and injured persons namely S.K. Bappa, Rakesh Rai and Sujay @ Joy Bagdi, with fists and blows and with plastic pipes and sticks lying at the spot. It is further alleged that they damaged the fan, electrical switchboard, mobile phone and drum kept in the verandah by throwing them on the ground and hitting them with sticks. Co-accused Vivek Dheeraj allegedly set fire to the tarpaulin lying in the plot using a lighter. Due to the assault, Sujay @ Joy Bagdi sustained a serious injury to his nose and was referred to Raipur for treatment, indicating that he had sustained a grievous injury. Accordingly, the offences as mentioned above were registered against the Applicant. Hence this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant 3 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the FIR does not disclose any specific overt act or distinct role attributable to the Applicant and that the allegations against him are general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that the Applicant has no connection with the alleged incident and has never been involved in any such activity. He further submits that the prosecution case is primarily based upon the statements of interested witnesses, whose credibility can be tested only during trial. He also submits that the alleged incident occurred on 20.06.2026 at about 11:00 p.m., whereas the FIR was lodged on 21.06.2026 at about 2:56 p.m., after an unexplained delay of nearly 16 hours, which creates doubt regarding the prosecution version and affords scope for deliberation and false implication. He lastly submits that the Applicant is a young person, is in jail since 28.06.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, he may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, the Applicant is alleged to have caused a contusion in the occipital region of the injured and he has no criminal antecedents. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, 4 however, submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed. 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, the nature of allegations, the fact that the Applicant is in custody since 28.06.2026, the Applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed as submitted by learned Counsel for the Applicant and the trial is likely to take considerable time, without further commenting anything upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let Applicant- Sameer Tandon involved in Crime No. 461/2026 registered at Police Station – Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3), 333, 324(2), 326(G), 191(1) and 191(2) of BNS be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for 5 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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her 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/her 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/her, 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/her 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 Priya