1 2026:CGHC:19594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3827 of 2026 Mohan Das Panjwani S/o Shri Madhaw Das Panjwani, Aged About 65 Years R/o Kamal Colony Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, 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. 105/2026, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(K) and 332(B) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 06.02.2026 at afternoon at about 02:00 PM, the applicant along with other co-accused Shayam Yadav entered the room of the victim where co-accused Shayam Yadav sexually assaulted her, while the applicant was watching the incident and did not PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.04.29 14:41:44 +0530 2 stop the co-accused (Shayam Yadav) from committing the act. Hence, this FIR. 3. 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 applicant is the owner of the house, and the victim, a woman aged about 64 years, was a tenant therein. It is contended that co-accused Shyam Yadav was also a tenant, however, it is respectfully submitted that there is no overt act attributed to the present applicant in the entire prosecution story. The only allegation against the applicant is that he allegedly extended protection to the co-accused, namely Shyam Yadav, by retaining him as a tenant, thereby purportedly facilitating the commission of the alleged offence. The present applicant has no direct role or involvement whatsoever in the alleged dispute or in the commission of the offence between the co-accused Shyam Yadav and the victim. It is further contended that the charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicant is stated to have no previous criminal antecedent. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 07.02.2026. 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 is aged about 65 years and that his name finds mention in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. It is argued that specific allegations have been levelled against the applicant. 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 3 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 applicant is aged about 65 years and that his name finds mention in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, however, the said allegations are not corroborated by the medical report, further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 07.02.2026, 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. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Mohan Das Panjwani, involved in Crime No. 105/2026, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(k) and 332(B) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 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 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, 4 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 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. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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