1 CGHC010298292026 2026:CGHC:35985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7471 of 2026 S. Pawan Rao Son Of Shri S. Raghunath Rao, Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Aman Nagar Awanti Vihar, Shiv Mandir Gali No. 1, Raipur, P. S. Khamhardih, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Khamhardih, District – Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Digitally signed by Order on BoardRAJSHEKHAR SONI 13.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second 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. 123/2024, registered at Police Station – Khamhardih, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 326, 201 and 34 of the IPC. 2. Earlier, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.3136/2026, on merits. 3. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant has made written complaint before the Police Station that on the date of incident there was a dispute between the parties regarding previous enmity and 2

thereafter, the accused persons have assaulted the injured persons by danda as resultant the injured have received simple injuries. Hence, this application. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that though the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, but till date the charges have not been framed by the trial Court. The applicant is in jail since 07.03.2026 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant had absconded in the year 2024 and was arrested only on 07.03.2026, and if the applicant be enlarged on bail, there is likelihood that he will abscond again, and on the same ground the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.3136/2026, the applicant is in jail since 07.03.2026, and though the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, but till date the charges have not been framed by the trial Court, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 3 8. Accordingly, this second bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let applicant – S. Pawan Rao, involved in Crime No. 123/2024, registered at Police Station – Khamhardih, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 326, 201 and 34 of the IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties (one should be family member) 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 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 4 open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 10. 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 Rajshekhar

1 CGHC010298292026 2026:CGHC:35985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7471 of 2026 S. Pawan Rao Son Of Shri S. Raghunath Rao, Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Aman Nagar Awanti Vihar, Shiv Mandir Gali No. 1, Raipur, P. S. Khamhardih, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Khamhardih, District – Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Digitally signed by Order on BoardRAJSHEKHAR SONI 13.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second 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. 123/2024, registered at Police Station – Khamhardih, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 326, 201 and 34 of the IPC. 2. Earlier, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.3136/2026, on merits. 3. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant has made written complaint before the Police Station that on the date of incident there was a dispute between the parties regarding previous enmity and 2

thereafter, the accused persons have assaulted the injured persons by danda as resultant the injured have received simple injuries. Hence, this application. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that though the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, but till date the charges have not been framed by the trial Court. The applicant is in jail since 07.03.2026 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant had absconded in the year 2024 and was arrested only on 07.03.2026, and if the applicant be enlarged on bail, there is likelihood that he will abscond again, and on the same ground the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.3136/2026, the applicant is in jail since 07.03.2026, and though the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, but till date the charges have not been framed by the trial Court, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 3 8. Accordingly, this second bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let applicant – S. Pawan Rao, involved in Crime No. 123/2024, registered at Police Station – Khamhardih, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 326, 201 and 34 of the IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties (one should be family member) 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 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 4 open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 10. 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 Rajshekhar