1 2026:CGHC:15830 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3059 of 2026 Ram Soni S/o Mukesh Soni, Aged About 21 Years R/o Barejpara, Near Samudayik Bhawan, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O2cer, Police Station- Kotwali Ambikapur,district-Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/04/2026 1. This is the :rst bail application :led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 781/2025 registered at Police Station- Kotwali, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Sections 115(2), 191(1), 296(b), 331(6) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the FIR was lodged by the complainant Saurabh Mishra with the intent that on 20.10.2025 in the evening, a quarrel took place between accused Ansh Pandit KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 and his cousin Prakhar Mishra near Hotel Avalon, and thereafter, on 21.10.2025 at about 01:30 AM, co-accused Ansh Pandit along with co-accused Golu alias Ganesh, present applicant and other associates came near the house of the complainant, abused loudly and threatened to kill Saurabh Mishra and Prakhar Mishra, and further damaged the vehicles parked outside the house, namely Innova, Hyundai i20 and Honda Amaze by breaking their window glasses. It is further alleged that thereafter co-accused Baba Pandit (father of Ansh Pandit) along with his wife also reached the spot and all the accused persons forcibly entered the house by pushing the main door, abused the complainant and assaulted him and his cousin with hands, :sts, sticks and other weapons, wherein speci:cally accused Ansh Pandit assaulted the complainant on his head with a weapon causing bleeding injuries and other accused persons also participated in the assault and on hearing the commotion, family members and nearby persons namely Himanshu Singh and Manish Singh intervened to rescue them, during which Himanshu Singh was also assaulted and sustained injuries, during investigation, the name of the present applicant was implicated on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Om Pandit and the present applicant was arrested on 05.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 781/2025 registered for the o=ence punishable under Sections 296(b), 351(3), 115(2), 331(6), 191(1) of BNS, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is 3 further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish any speci:c role of the present applicant in the alleged o=ence and the entire case is doubtful, particularly in view of the fact that the name of the applicant does not :nd place in the FIR and he has been implicated only on the basis of memorandum statement of co- accused persons. It is also submitted that similarly placed co- accused persons namely Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Om Tiwari and Sudhanshu Rai @ Chinu Pandit have already been granted bail by this Court vide common order dated 23.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 9365/2025 and MCRC No. 9912/2025 further, the investigation in the present case is complete and charge-sheet has been :led and the applicant is in judicial custody since 05.11.2025 and has only one criminal antecedent under the BNS, in which he is on bail and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicant, submit that the charge-sheet has been :led before the competent Court and the trial is currently in progress. He further concur with the submission made on behalf of the applicant to the e=ect that the principle of parity may be considered, however, he contend that the serious nature of the o=ences, the ongoing investigation and the possibility of inCuencing witnesses weigh against granting bail to the applicant at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and 4 gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 05.11.2025 and further the fact that similarly situated co-accused namely Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Om Tiwari and Sudhanshu Rai @ Chinu Pandit have already been granted bail by this Court vide common order dated 23.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 9365/2025 and MCRC No. 9912/2025 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Ram Soni, involved in Crime No. 781/2025 registered at Police Station- Kotwali, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Sections 115(2), 191(1), 296(b), 331(6) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023., 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 :le an undertaking to the e=ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates :xed 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 shall remain present before the trial court on each date :xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su2cient 5 cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date :xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, 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 :xed 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 su2cient 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. 9. O2ce is directed to send a certi:ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal