PRABHAT THAKUR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010428072026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 10375 of 2026
Prabhat Thakur S/o Late Pramod Thakur Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Shiv
Sakti Mandir P.S. Sarkanda District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., Sakri District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Nikhil Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Order on Board
02/11/2026
This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section
1.
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of
regular bail, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
359/2026 registered at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for
the offences punishable under Sections 140(3), 308(5) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The earlier, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this
2.
Court on merits in MCRC No. 7504 of 2026 vide order dated
28.09.2026. Hence, the present second bail application.

2
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Sudhir Joshi
3.
lodged a written complaint alleging that accused Satish Mishra, along
with other co-accused persons, by impersonating themselves as police
officials, called the complainant's son Mayank Joshi and his friends,
confined and abducted them, threatened them with death and
attempted to extort money by intimidation. It is further alleged that on
23.02.2026, Satish Mishra and his associates took Piyush Dhruv and
Pranav Mishra in a Scorpio vehicle bearing the word "Police" to an
unknown place, while Mayank Joshi and Ujjwal Rana were confined
and threatened and were subsequently taken in an Alto car and
dropped at Nehru Chowk. On the basis of the complaint, the aforesaid
offence was registered against the accused persons, including the
present applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is
4.
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would
further submit that the complainant, Sakshi Sudhir Joshi, has turned
hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution in her
statement recorded before the trial Court. He would also submit that
the alleged victim, Mayank Joshi, has turned hostile and has neither
identified the present applicant nor deposed anything against him in
support of the prosecution story. He would further submit that the bail
applications of co-accused Satish Mishra in MCRC No. 4402 of 2026,
Ashish Sharma in MCRC No. 7051 of 2026 and Vinay Sahu in MCRC
No. 7555 of 2026 have been allowed. He would contend that the case
of the present applicant is similar to that of the aforesaid co-accused
persons and the applicant is in jail since 28.04.2026, has only one
criminal antecedent, as disclosed in paragraph 4-A of the bail

3
application and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.
Therefore, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer for
5.
grant of bail and submit that the first bail application of the present
applicant has already been rejected by this Court on merits and no
fresh ground or substantial change in circumstances has been brought
forward in the present second bail application warranting
reconsideration of the prayer for bail. She would further submit that the
applicant has one criminal antecedent registered in the year 2026,
which is still pending before the competent Court. Therefore, the
present bail application deserves to be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
6.
diary.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and
7.
gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, the fact that the first
bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits in
MCRC No. 7504 of 2026 vide order dated 28.09.2026 and further
considering that the applicant has one criminal antecedent registered
in the year 2026, which is still pending, this Court is of the view that no
substantial change in circumstances has been brought to the notice of
this Court warranting reconsideration of the prayer for grant of bail.
While considering the first bail application, this Court had already
considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including
the nature of allegations and the material available in the case diary.
Merely because certain prosecution witnesses, including the
complainant and the alleged victim, have not supported the

4
prosecution case during their examination before the trial Court, the
same, by itself, would not constitute a sufficient ground for grant of bail
in the present second bail application. The credibility and reliability of
the statements of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the effect of
their testimony, are matters to be appreciated by the trial Court at the
appropriate stage. This Court, at this stage, would refrain from
conducting a mini-trial or making any observation on the merits of the
evidence. Further, the grant of bail to the co-accused persons, namely
Satish Mishra, Ashish Sharma and Vinay Sahu, does not, by itself,
entitle the present applicant to claim parity, particularly when the first
bail application of the present applicant was considered and rejected
on merits. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to enlarge
the applicant on regular bail.
Accordingly, the second bail application filed by the applicant, is hereby
8.
rejected .
- S/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Kunal