BANDE KUMAR LONIYA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010289582026 2026:CGHC:38810

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8112 of 2026
Bande Kumar Loniya S/o Shri Dhaniram Loniya Aged About 36 Years R/o
Village Ghutku Police Station Koni Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Koni District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.09.2026
1. This is the second 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. 400/2025 registered at Police Station –
Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 10534
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2026 on
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
merits.

2
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.02.2025, the
deceased, Dev Prasad, fell ill and was admitted to CIMS for
treatment, however, during the course of treatment, he expired on
the same day. Upon receiving information regarding his death, a
merg was registered and an inquiry was conducted. During the
course of the merg inquiry, it was allegedly found that prior to his
death, the deceased had consumed homemade liquor which he had
purchased from Panch Bai @ Pancho Lahre. During investigation,
the said Panch Bai, in her memorandum statement, allegedly
disclosed that the liquor consumed by the deceased had been
supplied to her by the present applicant. On the basis of the
material collected during the investigation, the applicant was
arrested in connection with the aforesaid offence and has been
charged under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023. Hence, the present bail application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the first bail
application of the applicant was rejected by this Hon’ble Court on
merit. He further submits that the applicant is innocent and has
been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has neither
committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged
offence. It is further submitted that the material and evidence
collected during investigation are not prima facie sufficient to
establish the applicant’s involvement in the alleged offence. He
submits that the applicant has been implicated and arrested solely
on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Panch
Bai @ Pancho Lahre, which, in itself, is not substantive or

3
admissible evidence against the applicant. It is further submitted
that the applicant has consistently approached the learned Trial
Court seeking expeditious disposal of the case, however, his
application for urgent hearing was rejected by the learned Trial
Court. He further submits that the applicant has been in custody
since 28.08.2025 and, considering the period of incarceration and
the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time, his continued
detention is unwarranted. Hence, he prays for grant of second bail
to the applicant.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the second bail
application of the present applicant and submits that the present
application is the second bail application preferred by the applicant
and that his earlier bail application, being MCRC No. 10534 of
2025, was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated
13.01.2026. It is further submitted that the co-accused Panch Bai
@ Pancho Lahre, through whom the prosecution case alleges that
the liquor was supplied to the deceased, has also not been granted
the benefit of bail and her bail application, being MCRC No. 10248
of 2025, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2025.
He further submits that the applicant has a total of eight criminal
antecedents, out of which three cases have already been disposed
of, while the remaining cases are still pending. He submits that the
applicant’s involvement has emerged during the course of
investigation from the memorandum statement of co-accused
Panch Bai @ Pancho Lahre, wherein she allegedly disclosed that
the liquor consumed by the deceased had been supplied to her by

4
the present applicant. It is further submitted that the allegations
against the applicant are serious in nature, as the prosecution case
relates to the alleged supply of illicit/home-made liquor which was
consumed by the deceased prior to his death. He further points out
that the applicant has not filed the order-sheet of the trial
proceedings to demonstrate the present status and progress of the
trial, and therefore, the plea regarding delay in conclusion of the trial
is not supported by the record. In the absence of any substantial
change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail
application, and considering the nature of the allegations, the
material collected during investigation, the criminal antecedents of
the applicant and the fact that bail of the co-accused has also been
rejected, he prays for rejection of the present bail application.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the present
application is the second bail application preferred by the applicant
and that his earlier bail application, being MCRC No. 10534 of
2025, was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated
13.01.2026. It further transpires that no substantial change in
circumstances or any new ground has been brought on record
warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. The prosecution
case alleges that the deceased Dev Prasad had consumed
homemade liquor purchased from co-accused Panch Bai @
Pancho Lahre and that, in her memorandum statement, she

5
disclosed that the said liquor had been supplied to her by the
present applicant. It is also relevant to note that the bail application
of the said co-accused Panch Bai @ Pancho Lahre, being MCRC
No. 10248 of 2025, was rejected by this Court vide order dated
12.12.2025. Further, the applicant has eight criminal antecedents,
out of which three cases have already been disposed of, while the
remaining cases are still pending, which is also a relevant
circumstance while considering the prayer for bail. Though learned
counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since
28.08.2025 and that the trial is likely to take considerable time, but
the applicant has not filed the relevant order-sheets of the Trial
Court to demonstrate the present status and progress of the trial.
Thus, the plea regarding delay in conclusion of the trial is not
supported by any material placed on record. Considering the nature
and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during
investigation, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, rejection of the
earlier bail application on merits, rejection of bail to the co-accused
Panch Bai @ Pancho Lahre and the absence of any new ground or
substantial change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Bande
Kumar Loniya, involved in Crime No. 400/2025 registered at
Police Station – Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, is rejected.

6
9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to
proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.
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
Rahul Dewangan