1 CGHC010361812026 2026:CGHC:42413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8643 of 2026 1 - Rajjak Ali S/o Guljar Ali, Aged About 49 Years Occupation Member Jila Panchayat Korba, R/o Nonbira Korba District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Amit Choudhari S/o Chandra Prakash Choudhari, Aged About 33 Years Occupation Smart Meter Making Through Electricity Department Kashinagar, Niharika, Korba District Korba (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Civil Line Rampur, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Applicants : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. Applicants have filed this Second bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 bail as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 550/2026 registered at Police Station – Civil Line Rampur, District- Korba (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 109(1), 3 (5) of B.N.S and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, Shiv Balak Singh Tomar suffered grievous multiple fracture injuries over his leg. He was taken to the hospital and there based on statement made by the injured Shiv Balak Singh Tomar to the concerned police officer, the FIR was lodged by the police official in the Police Station stating therein that there was some proceedings going on between his nephew Mahashakti Singh Tomar with applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali. Based upon which applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali has lodged a report implicating him in the commission of offence of rape with his maid. Due to the said report, his nephew Mahashakti Singh Tomar is in jail. When he went to meet his nephew in jail, applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali came near to the jail and have stated him that he is ready to settle the case for which he asked to pay some amount upon which he overlooked his proposal of settlement stating that he is going to meet his advocate. applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali asked him to give lift till petrol pump where his vehicle is standing. When he took applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali along with him in Scooty and dropped him near petrol pump, he called 4-5 of his friends with arms and assaulted him on his leg with stick and iron rod due to which he suffered multiple fracture injuries. He 3 also stated that pistol was also put on his head. Based on the report, FIR was registered against the applicants herein and 2 other co-accused persons. Hence this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the fabricated case. He contended that no such incident happened. Applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali is member of the Jila Panchayat and only to safe his nephew from the criminal case registered against him of rape, false allegations have been made. He also contended that earlier Mahashakti Singh Tomar bad misbehaved with his family members and also obtained some money. He submits that no pistol has been seized and only one plastic toy gun has been seized. He submits that one of the co-accused person namely Modh. Kalim has been released on bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court, therefore, denial of bail to the applicants would amount to hostile discrimination. It is further submitted that the applicants have remained in custody for a considerable period and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. There is also no likelihood of the applicants absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, it is prayed that the applicants be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and further submits that from the FIR it is appearing that applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali by narrating the false story has taken lift on the scooty of the injured Shiv Balak Singh Tomar till 4 petrol pump and upon reaching there, he called his other friends armed with the weapons and it is the applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali who asked the other accused persons to cause injuries on the leg. He also submits that he also participated in commission of the crime. He submits that as per the MLC report available in the case diary multiple fractures have been suffered by the injured and according to the query report available in the case diary, it would have been dangerous to life also. The injuries suffered may be dangerous to life. He also contended that earlier there was order of externment against applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali and now again the proceedings is initiated for the externment. He contended that there are as many as 29 criminal antecedents against applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali. So far as applicant No.2/Amit Choudhari is concerned he submits that there is only one criminal antecedent against him bearing Crime No.430/2026 for alleged commission of offence under Section 296, 351(3) and 324 (4) of B.N.S. 5. At this stage learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the order of externment which was earlier passed against applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali was quashed by the Appellate Forum on 03.12.2024. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. From the contents, it is apparent that it is applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali who on the pretext of enmity has taken the injured with him upto the petrol pump and called his other friends with arms, thereafter, 5 it is on the direction of the applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali, other persons have also assaulted resulting in multiple fracture injuries over the leg of the complainant and the applicant also participated in commission of offence, which appears to be the planned and intentional crime committed by the applicant No.1. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the offence has been committed, the nature of the allegations and earlier tract record of the applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali, I am not inclined to allow the application for grant of bail of applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali. Accordingly his application for grant of regular bail is dismissed. 9. So far as application for grant of regular bail to Amit Choudhari/applicant No.2 is concerned, considering that he is in jail since 15.06.2026, charge-sheet has also been filed and only one criminal antecedent is there against his name and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the application for grant of regular bail to applicant No.2/Amit Choudhari. 10. Accordingly, application for grant of regular bail to applicant No.1/Rajjak Ali is dismissed and application for grant of regular bail to applicant No.2/Amit Choudhari is allowed. It is directed that applicant No.2/Amit Choudhari shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions 6 that- (a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) 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 in accordance with law. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Ravi Mandavi