VIVEK SINGH TOMAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010335402026 2026:CGHC:38374
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No.8028 of 2026
Vivek Singh Tomar S/o Ramsiya Singh Tomar Aged About 24 Years
R/o Gram Khand Ka Pura, Tutwas, Police Station - Ambah, District
Muraina M.P. ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (SHO), Police
Station Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant
_____________________________________________________
For Applicant :Mr. Awadh Tripathi Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State :Mr. SS Baghel, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
31.08.2026
st
1. The Applicant has preferred this 1 Bail Application under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
SISTLA
NEELIMA
for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in
VISHNU
PRIYA
Digitally signed by
SISTLA NEELIMA
VISHNU PRIYA
Date: 2026.09.01
11:35:58 +0530

2
connection with Crime No.78/2026 registered at Police
Station – Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.),
for the offences under Sections 318(2), 319(2), 336(3), 338
and 340(2) of BNS and also under Sections 61(2)(a), 66(c)
and 66(d) of IT Act.
2. As per the case of prosecution, on the basis of a written
complaint lodged by Satyajivan Ravi, Patwari Halka Nos.24
and 30, Tehsil Office Balrampur, an inquiry was conducted,
during which it was found that accused Sumit, S/o Anchal
Singh, with the intention of taking advantage of the lower cut-
off marks prescribed for recruitment in the CRPF for native
residents of Chhattisgarh, allegedly paid money to co-
accused Omprakash Chandravanshi for preparation of a
forged domicile certificate showing him as a native of
Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. During verification of the said
certificate, it was further revealed that the domicile certificate
of the present Applicant had also allegedly been prepared by
Omprakash Chandravanshi by using the domicile-related
documents of one Deepak Chourasiya. It is alleged that,
being desirous of securing employment, the Applicant, with
the assistance of co-accused Omprakash Chandravanshi,
who was formerly running a Choice Centre, got a domicile
certificate prepared in his name on the basis of documents

3
relating to Khalsha Public School, Dongargarh and the said
certificate was handed over to him. Accordingly, the offences
as mentioned above were registered against the Applicant.
Hence this application.
3.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case and that the domicile certificate allegedly prepared in his
name by co-accused Omprakash Chandravanshi for
monetary consideration was never used by the Applicant for
securing any employment. It is submitted that the Applicant
himself is a victim of the alleged acts committed by the other
co-accused persons and that no direct or legally admissible
material has been collected against him, his implication being
based merely on suspicion. It is also submitted that the
alleged offence is bailable in nature and triable by the Court
of Judicial Magistrate First Class and the trial is likely to take
considerable time. He further submits that the present
Applicant is in jail since 23.05.2026 and co-accused Akash
Sharma and Sumit Singh have already been granted bail by
this Court vide orders dated 21.08.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.7817/2026 and 19.08.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.7686/2026 respectively, therefore, on the ground of parity,
the Applicant may also be granted regular bail.

4
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail
application.
5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel
for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the
nature of allegations, the fact that the Applicant is not alleged
to have used the said domicile certificate for securing any
employment, he is in jail since 23.05.2026 and co-accused
Akash Sharma and Sumit Singh have already been granted
bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.08.2026 passed in
M.Cr.C. No.7817/2026 and 19.08.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.7686/2026 respectively and further considering that the
trial is likely to take considerable time, without further
commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that it is a fit case to extend the benefit of
bail to the Applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
7. Let Applicant- Vivek Singh Tomar involved in Crime No.
78/2026 registered at Police Station – Balrampur, District
Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offences under
Sections 318(2), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS and
also under Sections 61(2)(a), 66(c) and 66(d) of IT Act be

5
released on bail on his furnishing a 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/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 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/her
counsel. In case of his/her absence,
without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him/her 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/her 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/her, 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 him/her
in accordance with law.

6
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
Priya