1 2026:CGHC:19599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2830 of 2026 Sagar Alias Pahalwan S/o Ramjanik Aged About 24 Years R/o Israna, P.S. and Tahsil Israna, District- Panipat (Haryana) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Tripathi and Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 884/2025, registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 119(3), 296(B), 351(3), 115(2), 111(2)(B), 324(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, on 22.11.2025, the complainant (Saddam Khan) says he was called by Sahil Khan to a place called Luchki Ghat, Kantiprakashpur because officials (Patwari and Revenue Inspector) were measuring land and a dispute had arisen. When he 2 reached there, an argument was already going on between two sides over the land measurement. The situation escalated from a verbal dispute into a physical fight (scuffle). The complainant alleges that the applicant (accused) and other co-accused attacked him and others using sticks or similar objects. As a result, the complainant and some others suffered injuries. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the present case arises out of a purely civil dispute concerning demarcation and possession of land, which has been deliberately given a criminal colour by the complainant. It is submitted that the dispute with regard to demarcation is already pending adjudication before the competent revenue authority, and the Commissioner, Sarguja has stayed the demarcation proceedings vide order dated 01.07.2025. In view of the said stay, any allegation arising out of the alleged incident is intrinsically connected to the pending civil dispute. The initiation of criminal proceedings, therefore, appears to be a mala-fide attempt to exert pressure upon the applicant and the co-accused family members, with the ulterior motive of forcing them to vacate the land in their lawful possession. It is further submitted that the alleged incident occurred on account of a sudden altercation between two rival groups over possession of the disputed land, and there was no prior meeting of minds or any premeditated intention on the part of the applicants to commit the alleged offences. The occurrence, if any, was spontaneous in nature. On the contrary, it was the complainant party who acted as the aggressor by entering upon the land in possession of Idris Ansari and committing criminal trespass, despite being fully aware of the subsisting stay order concerning the demarcation proceedings. Thus, the complainant himself 3 is the instigator of the alleged incident. It is pertinent to mention that, in respect of the same occurrence, the applicants’ side has also lodged FIR No. 877/2025 at Police Station Ambikapur against the complainant party, which further substantiates that the matter is a case of cross-versions arising out of a land dispute. It is further contended that the charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicant is stated to have two previous criminal antecedents under the BNS and Arms Act, explanation of the same has been given in paragraph No. 4.a of this bail application and has been in judicial custody since 23.11.2025. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed. She further submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents. Despite time being granted, information regarding the applicant’s criminal antecedents from the State of Haryana could not be obtained. Therefore, it is contended that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, further that the present case arises out of a purely civil dispute concerning demarcation and possession of land, the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents, which has been duly explained in paragraph No. 4(a) of the present bail application, despite time being granted, 4 information regarding the applicant’s criminal antecedents from the State of Haryana could not be obtained and the applicant is in jail since 23.11.2025, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Sagar Alias Pahalwan, involved in Crime No. 884/2025, registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 119(3), 296(B), 351(3), 115(2), 111(2)(B), 324(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) 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. (ii) 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. (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 5 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. (iv) 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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti