1 2026:CGHC:2442 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 533 of 2026 Rambharosa Dewangan S/o Johan Dewangan Aged About 59 Years R/o Vill. Kokadi, Police Station - Kurud, District Dhamtri (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtri (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/01/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 322/2025 registered at Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtri (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 326(g), 351(2) of BNS. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant submitted a complaint to the concerned police station alleging that on 09.12.2025 at about 3:00 P.M., the applicant, while carrying a vegetable-cutting sickle, abused the complainant and threatened to kill him, due to which the complainant, out of fear, went to his house. It is further alleged that upon returning, the complainant found that the applicant, namely Ram Bharosa Dewangan, had set fire to his shop, resulting in damage to daily-use goods and auto parts kept therein. On the basis of the said report, a spot damage panchnama was prepared and, accordingly, an offence under Sections 296(b), 326(g) and 351(2) of the B.N.S. was registered against the applicant and he was arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the applicant has not acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution and has been falsely implicated on the basis of an incorrect and motivated report. The applicant is the real uncle of the complainant and there is an admitted and long-standing land dispute pending between them. The alleged incident is stated to have occurred at about 3:00 P.M.. in broad daylight, yet there is no independent eyewitness to support the prosecution story, which itself creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of the allegations and indicates that the case has been lodged due to past rivalry and 3 personal animosity. He also submits that the complainant himself has filed an affidavit before the learned lower court stating that the applicant is his elder uncle and that due to the ongoing land dispute, he merely suspected the applicant in relation to the fire that broke out in his shop on 09.12.2025, and on such suspicion alone, the report was lodged. It is further submitted that the applicant is about 59 years of age, is not a habitual offender, and has no criminal antecedents whatsoever, as no other offence is registered against him in any police station except the present case. The applicant is in jail since 10.12.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have abused and threatened the complainant with a vegetable- cutting sickle and thereafter to have intentionally set fire to the complainant’s shop, causing damage to daily-use goods and auto parts, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant 4 since 10.12.2025, the fact that though the applicant is alleged to have abused and threatened the complainant with a vegetable- cutting sickle and thereafter to have intentionally set fire to the complainant’s shop, causing damage to daily-use goods and auto parts, but considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Rambharosa Dewangan, involved in Crime No. 322/2025 registered at Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtri (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 326(g), 351(2) of BNS, 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 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 5 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. (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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil