1 2026:CGHC:18538 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3680 of 2026 Dhaniram Sonwani Alias Bunty S/o Ashok Sonwani Aged About 32 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ---- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Dy. AG ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 23/04/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.221/2024 (wrongly mentioned as 22/2024 in the impugned order) registered at Police VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2026.04.23 16:49:34 +0530 2 Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 327, 324, 506-B, 302 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story as portrayed in brief is that on 02.05.2024 at about 10:00 PM, the applicant, due to a prior dispute, allegedly abused and assaulted the deceased Rohit Sikka and, during the altercation, inflicted an injury on his left thigh with a sharp iron weapon. The injured was initially treated at District Hospital, Mahasamund and thereafter referred to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur, where due to infection his leg was amputated. After being discharged, his condition deteriorated again and he was re- admitted, and during the course of treatment he died on 12.06.2024. Initially, the case was registered under Sections 294, 323, 324 and 506 IPC, and subsequently, after the death of the deceased, Section 302 IPC was added. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in the said case. He further contended that the prosecution case itself does not establish a direct nexus between the alleged injury and the death of the deceased, as the post mortem report clearly indicates that the cause of death was Septicemia (Infective Complications), which is not the immediate result of the alleged act of the 3 applicant. He further contended that the medical opinion merely suggests ‘infective changes’ and does not conclusively attribute the cause of death to the injury allegedly inflicted by the applicant, therefore, the applicant cannot be said to have committed offece under Section 302 of IPC. He further contended that the injry was on the thigh and the death occurred after prolonged treatment, amputation and subsequent complications, indicating intervening medical causes, thereby diluting the essential ingredients of intension and knowledge requred under Section 302 of IPC. Lastly, he contended that the applicant is in jail since 22.06.2024 and the trial will take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that murder of the deceased caused by the applicant by flick knife, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties. From the bare perusal of the case diary, it is revealed that, sufficient grounds are being shown by the prosecution that the accused/applicant has committed the 4 aforesaid offence. Looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, granting bail to the accused/applicant does not appear to be justified. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant stands rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that the trial Court shall not be prejudiced the observation made by this Court and the same shall be decided on its own merits. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Vasant