1 CGHC010362072026 2026:CGHC:42442 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8653 of 2026 * - Nagendra @ Nikhil Sahu S/o- Teman Lal Sahu, Aged About 20 Years R/o- Village Bhendarwani, Police Station - Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as he is in jail since 08.07.2026 in connection with Crime No. 77/2026 registered in Police Station – Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (CG) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 309(6), 311, 126(2) & 351(3) of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 2. As per case of prosecution, on 06.07.2026 at around 10:00 p.m. complainant- Manish Kumar Sonwani lodged a written report at Police Station Bhakhara, District Dhamtari to the effect that while he was transporting cattle in a transport career along with his father, the present applicant and 03 other accused persons stopped the vehicle Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.09.30 11:00:26 +0530 2 and demanded Rs.50,000/- from father of the complainant and subsequently transferred Rs.28,500/- in his bank account through paytm. F.I.R. was registered on 07.07.2026 and offences as stated above were registered. 3. Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant would contend that the Tempo-truck vehicle of the applicant and transport career of complainant met with an accident and as there was negligence on the part of the complainant, the present applicant demanded charges for repair of the vehicle. He would contend that the father of the complainant himself transferred a sum of Rs.28,500/- in bank account of owner of the vehicle namely Neeraj Dhruwanshi using paytm. He would contend that no cash amount as alleged was demanded or taken from the complainant party. He would submit that charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in jail since 08.07.2026 and he has no criminal antecedent of similar nature. Thus, he would pray for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/non-applicant would submit that 01 Isthgasa was registered against the present applicant in the year 2026 and there are serious allegations of extortion and loot against the present applicant and co-accused and therefore, this bail application deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Perusal of the case diary would show that a knife was seized from the co-accused namely Neeraj Dhruwanshi; there is 01 criminal antecedent of preventive nature registered in the year 2026; charge- 3 sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 08.07.2026. A sum of Rs.28,500/- was transferred through paytm by the complaint party in bank account of owner of the vehicle namely Neeraj Dhruwanshi and no incriminating article was seized on the instance of the applicant, therefore, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- I. He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such fact to the Court; II. He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; III. He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till the disposal of the trial; and, IV. He shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature in future. 8. The observation made in the course of this order is only for considering the case of the applicant on the application for the grant of regular bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any observation made in the course of this order. 9. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti