1 2026:CGHC:17663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3277 of 2026 Brijesh Kumar Yadav S/o Ramshiromani Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Chauki Sirsa, Police Station- Meja, District- Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In- Charge, Police Station- Balko Nagar, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Afroz Khan, PL For Objector : Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 17/04/2026 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.51/2026 registered at Police Station Balco Nagar, Korba (C.G.), for the offence 2 punishable under Sections 140(2), 3(5) of BNS. 2. As per prosecution story complainant namely Sanjani Kanwar wife of Vinod Singh Kanwar lodged a complaint alleging that on 22.01.2026, at about 07:00 A.M. to 08:00 Α.Μ. one namely Sohan Yadav made a call over her Mobile Phone and told her husband to visit him, thereafter, she told her husband to visit him. She alleges that after getting no sign of return of her husband till noon, she dial her husband's phone which was answered by another person, who told that her husband went to distillery and would return by 05:00 P.M. She further alleges that at 05:00 P.M. she again received a call on BIL mobile phone of one namely Ajav Kanwar and it was told to her that all who have borrowed money shall return his money and her husband was taken to Deoria Brick Kiln and her husband would not be sent back unless the loan amount is not returned back, the complainant assigned specific role to Sohan Yadav resident of Ponch Police Station Balaunda, District- Janjgir Champa and Ashish Pratap Singh resident of Gyanu owner of brick kiln and other unknown persons. Based on the allegations the applicant has been arrested on 26.01.2026 and the applicant has been arrested only based on the statement of the co-accused. Hence, this application for bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in the said case. He 3 further contended that the applicant happens to be discharging his professional services at brick kiln of named accused and he does not have any enmity with the informant or the victim, on the other hand it was the applicant who tried to intervene in the on going altercation between the victim and other co-accused persons. He further contended that neither the applicant is named in the FIR nor there are any specific allegations by the informant during the investigation. It is also not the case of complainant that the applicant has abated or aided or facilitated the commission of alleged offence against the informant or victim. He further contended that the applicant does not have any relation with the informant or the victim, neither the applicant has advanced any money as loan to the informant or victim, thus the applicant is not interested in recovery of the said amount, if any. He further contended that the applicant has been detained in the police custody by the police personnel of the Police Station Balco Nagar without there being any direct evidence establishing the active role of the applicant in commission of alleged offence. It is submitted that after the illegal detention of the applicant in the instant case crime no.51 of 2026, the victim and informant volunteered for protecting the life and liberty of the applicant by furnishing a notorized affidavit dated 29.01.2026 to the Court of Learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Korba, wherein it has been brought on record by the informant and victim that the applicant is a innocent and he has no role in 4 commission of reported offence, on the other hand it has been revealed in the Affidavit that the applicant tried to save the victim from any injury. Lastly, he contended that the applicant is in jail since 26.01.2026 and the trial will take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the Objector contended that he has no objection for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties. Further considering that the charge-sheet filed but trial not commenced. Looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant stands rejected. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Vasant