PRAKASH POOJAN @ SONU MASIH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010284042026 2026:CGHC:38672
VAIBHAV
SINGH
NAFR
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.09.01
16:07:02 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 6743 of 2026
Prakash Poojan @ Sonu Masih S/o. Dipak Poojan, Aged About 38 Years R/o
Ward No. 05 Aadarsh Nagar Kawardha, P. S. Kawardha, District Kabirdham
(C.G.) ... Applicant

versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Kawardha Kabirdham (C.G.) ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.
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 Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
232/2026 registered at Police Station – Kawardha Kabirdham (C.G.),
for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) of the
BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

2
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12/06/2026 at about 10.47
complainant Akarm ali received a phone call from his daughter, he
went her house, his daughter told him that his son in law is calling him
at near purana bus stand. He was going to bus stand, just then near
vindhvasni mandir he found his son Shahil Ali, whose left leg was
bleeding. On being asked, he told that purana bus stand near auto
stand accused Sonu Masih had forcibly abused him with obscene
language his mother and sister, threatened to kill him, and hit him with
some object behind his left knee, which is causing bleeding. On basis
of oral report, FIR was registered against the accused at police station
kawardha, the accused was arrested and produced before the court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely
on the basis of suspicion, without there being any material connecting
him with the alleged offence. It is submitted that no incriminating
article has been seized from the possession of the applicant and that
he neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the
alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant
was not present at the spot at the relevant time and the evidence
collected by the prosecution is not prima facie sufficient to establish
his involvement in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the
applicant is a 38-year-old person, having children and family
responsibilities, and is a law-abiding citizen; therefore, there is no
likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution
witnesses or evidence. Learned counsel also submits that the
applicant is in custody since 13.06.2026 and his further pre-trial
detention would serve no useful purpose, particularly when his

3
involvement in the alleged offence is not prima facie established. On
these grounds, learned counsel prays that the applicant may kindly be
enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has ten
previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant
of regular bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and
further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant
has remained in judicial custody since 13.06.2026, and the fact that
the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court,
and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time,
this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant.
7. Let the Applicant – Prakash Poojan @ Sonu Masih, involved in
Crime No. 232/2026 registered at Police Station – Kawardha
Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296,
115(2), 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be
released on bail on his 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 she 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

4
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 his 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 her 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
Vaibhav