ROHIT PATEL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010331692026 2026:CGHC:38603

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8044 of 2026
Rohit Patel S/o Champat Patel Aged About 75 Years Caste Adhariya, R/o
Village Rajpur Post Barnaidadar, Thana Basna, Tehsil Pithora, Distt.
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Basna, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate
For Objector/complainant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
01.09.2026
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. 386/2026 registered at Police Station-
Basna, District - Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable
under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN

2
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.07.2026, the
complainant, Mulchand Gautam, appeared at Police Station Basna
and lodged a written report stating that at about 12:30 p.m., while
he was getting a thorny branch of a Karan tree, which had bent
towards the agricultural field, removed through his grandson
Prakash Gautam, Rohit Patel (present applicant), along with his
sons Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel and Aman Patel, came
near him, abused him in filthy language, threatened to kill him and
assaulted him with slaps and fists, as a result of which he fell to the
ground. Upon this, his grandson Prakash Gautam called his family
members, whereafter Rohit Patel, Devanand Patel, Devendra Patel
and Aman Patel, acting in furtherance of their common intention,
assaulted Prakash Gautam, Hetram Gautam and Karan Gautam. It
is further alleged that Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel, armed
with tangias, assaulted Prakash Gautam, Hetram Gautam and
Karan Gautam on their heads and faces with the intention of
causing their death, thereby causing them serious injuries. It is
alleged that the injured persons managed to flee from the spot and
save their lives. Due to the assault, Prakash Gautam, Hetram
Gautam and Karan Gautam were admitted to the hospital, while
Amar Ram Gautam also sustained injuries. On the basis of the
aforesaid report, Crime No. 386/2026 was registered against the
accused persons at Police Station Basna for offences punishable
under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation, on the basis
of the evidence collected, the accused persons Rohit Patel,

3
Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel were duly arrested on
17.07.2026. Hence, the present bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
submitted that the applicant is a 75-year-old man and there is no
specific allegation against him of assaulting any of the injured
persons with an axe or any other weapon, neither the FIR nor the
statements of the witnesses attribute any such overt act to the
applicant. It is further submitted that the alleged incident occurred in
front of the applicant’s house and the complainant party had come
there in an aggressive manner and was carrying weapons, thereby
indicating the possibility that they were the aggressors and had
come prepared for an altercation. It is also submitted that the
medical reports of the injured persons do not prima facie disclose
injuries of such nature as to attract the offence punishable under
Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He further
submits that the applicant’s daughter-in-law had also lodged a
written complaint regarding the incident, but no offence was
registered by the police against the members of the complainant
party, a copy of the said complaint has been filed and marked as
Annexure A/3 . It is further submitted that the injured persons were
discharged from the hospital within about three days and their
injuries were not found to be dangerous to life. He also submits that
one of the co-accused, namely Aman Patel, has already been
granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
17.08.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.A. No. 1324/2026. He also submits

4
that the applicant is in jail since 17.07.2026, he has no previous
criminal antecedents, 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 as well as learned counsel
for the objector opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that
the allegation against the applicant and the other co-accused is
serious in nature, as they, acting in furtherance of their common
intention, allegedly assaulted the complainant party, during which
the co-accused Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel are alleged to
have inflicted blows with tangias on the heads and faces of the
injured persons, causing them serious injuries. Learned counsel for
the objector further submits that the applicant was also present at
the spot and was a part of the unlawful assault, and merely because
no specific allegation of causing injury with a weapon is attributed to
him, his role in the incident cannot be completely brushed aside at
this stage. It is further submitted that the incident resulted in injuries
to multiple persons and the applicant cannot claim parity merely on
the basis of the bail granted to co-accused Aman Patel, who has
been granted anticipatory bail. However, learned State counsel as
well as learned counsel for the objector could not dispute the fact
that the applicant is aged about 75 years and that the specific
allegation of assault with a tangia is attributed to his sons, namely
Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel, and not to the present
applicant. They nevertheless strongly oppose the bail application on
the ground of the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of
the incident and pray for rejection of the bail application.

5
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature of the allegations and the material available on record, and
further the fact that though the allegation is that the applicant, along
with his co-accused sons, namely Devanand Patel and Devendra
Patel, participated in the assault upon the complainant party, the
specific allegation of causing injuries with a tangia/axe to the injured
persons is attributed to Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel, and
their role is thus distinguishable from that of the present applicant. It
is also not disputed that the applicant is aged about 75 years and is
in custody since 17.07.2026. The learned counsel for the objector
has vehemently opposed the bail application, however, the
objection does not outweigh the aforesaid mitigating circumstances,
particularly the advanced age of the applicant and the absence of
any specific allegation against him of inflicting weapon injuries. It is
further relevant that co-accused Aman Patel has already been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2026
in M.Cr.C.A. No. 1324/2026. Thus, without commenting on the
merits of the case, and keeping in view the applicant’s advanced
age, his period of custody, and the distinction between his role and
that of co-accused Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel, this Court
is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged
on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed . Let the
Applicant – Rohit Patel , involved in Crime No. 386/2026 registered

6
at Police Station- Basna, District - Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 296, 351(3) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on
furnishing 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 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.

7
(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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rahul Dewangan