1 CGHC010341412026 2026:CGHC:41714 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8207 of 2026 1 - Anurag Alias Cheenu S/o Pawan Garg Aged About 28 Years R/o Ganj Bazaar Kharsiya, Chowki Kharsiya District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Manish Garg @ Chhotu S/o Pawan Garg Aged About 27 Years R/o Ganj Bazaar Kharsiya, Chowki Kharsiya District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kharsiya District - Raigarh (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As Chowki) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Objector/Complainant : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate as well as Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board 25/09/2026 1. The applicants have preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 64/2025, registered at Police Station Kharsiya, District KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 331(6), 324(2) read with Section 3(5), 115(2) read with Section 3(5) and 105 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Earlier, the first bail applications preferred by the applicants were allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 3045/2025 and MCRC No. 3311/2025 vide orders dated 04.07.2025 and 30.06.2025, respectively. Thereafter, on account of non-appearance of the applicants before the learned trial Court on certain dates, their bail bonds were cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued against them. Pursuant thereto, the applicants appeared before the learned trial Court on 22.08.2026 and were taken into judicial custody. The applicants thereafter preferred bail applications before the learned trial Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.08.2026. Hence, the present Second Bail Application. 3. As per the prosecution case in brief, the complainant, namely Gagan Agrawal, lodged an FIR on 22.01.2025 alleging that at about 10:30 P.M., the applicants along with other co-accused abused and assaulted him with fists and kicks. On hearing the commotion, the complainant’s father (since deceased) came out of the house and asked them to stop. During the ensuing scuffle, he fell down at the spot and subsequently died. No external injury was found on his body and, as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure. 3 The applicants were earlier granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2025 and were regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. However, on 04.08.2026, due to their inability to appear, an application for adjournment and exemption from personal appearance, under Section 355 of BNSS was moved, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court and non-bailable warrants were issued against them. In compliance thereof, the applicants appeared before the learned trial Court on 22.08.2026 and moved an application under Section 72(2) read with Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for cancellation of the non-bailable warrants. The said application was fixed for hearing on 24.08.2026 and subsequently dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.08.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicants were earlier granted bail by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 3045/2025 and MCRC No. 3311/2025 vide orders dated 04.07.2025 and 30.06.2025, respectively. It is further submitted that the applicants could not appear before the learned trial Court on 1st, 3rd and 4th August, 2026 due to personal difficulties, while their counsel remained present and moved an application under Section 355 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking exemption from their personal appearance. However, the said application was rejected and non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicants. Learned counsel submits that the applicants thereafter appeared before the learned trial Court on 4 22.08.2026 and have been in custody since then. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have followed the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants are ready and willing to regularly appear before the learned trial Court and therefore, the present application may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the objector opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the case was fixed for recording of evidence before the learned trial Court, but on three consecutive dates the applicants failed to appear, due to which the proceedings could not progress. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application moved under Section 355 of the BNSS, 2023 and issued non-bailable warrants against the applicants. Therefore, the present bail application deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and other material available on record. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the applicants were earlier granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 3045/2025 and MCRC No. 3311/2025 vide orders dated 04.07.2025 and 30.06.2025, respectively. The applicants were thereafter required to appear before the learned trial Court on the dates fixed for the proceedings. On 1st, 3rd and 4th August, 2026, 5 the applicants did not appear before the learned trial Court, though their counsel appeared and moved an application seeking exemption from personal appearance. The said application was rejected on 04.08.2026 and non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicants. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, has observed that the Court should ordinarily follow the procedure of issuing summons, thereafter bailable warrant and, if so warranted, non-bailable warrant. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicants were earlier granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and were regularly appearing before the learned trial Court on each date fixed, except on three occasions, when they could not appear and thereafter appeared before the learned trial Court on 22.08.2026 and are in judicial custody since then and further considering the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed. It is directed that in the event of the applicants executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person 6 acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, & (iii) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. - S/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Kunal