SAMEER TANDON vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010311052026 2026:CGHC:38877
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No.8193 of 2026
Sameer Tandon S/o Shri Harishwar Tandon Aged About 19 Years
R/o Dhuma, P.S. Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sirgitti, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant
_____________________________________________________
For Applicant :Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State :Ms. Ritika Verma, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.09.2026
st
1. The Applicant has preferred this 1 Bail Application under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in
SISTLA
NEELIMA
VISHNU
PRIYA
connection with Crime No.461/2026 registered at Police
Station – Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences
Digitally signed by
SISTLA NEELIMA
VISHNU PRIYA
Date: 2026.09.02
17:36:26 +0530

2
under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3), 333, 324(2), 326(G),
191(1) and 191(2) of BNS.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 20.06.2026, the
Applicant/accused, along with other co-accused persons,
went to the plot of Rakesh Gupta where the complainant and
other injured persons, who were residents of Bihar, were
working and asked them to open the gate. When they
refused to do so, the Applicant and his associates allegedly
forcibly entered the plot by scaling the gate and abused and
assaulted the complainant and injured persons namely S.K.
Bappa, Rakesh Rai and Sujay @ Joy Bagdi, with fists and
blows and with plastic pipes and sticks lying at the spot. It is
further alleged that they damaged the fan, electrical
switchboard, mobile phone and drum kept in the verandah by
throwing them on the ground and hitting them with sticks.
Co-accused Vivek Dheeraj allegedly set fire to the tarpaulin
lying in the plot using a lighter. Due to the assault, Sujay @
Joy Bagdi sustained a serious injury to his nose and was
referred to Raipur for treatment, indicating that he had
sustained a grievous injury. Accordingly, the offences as
mentioned above were registered against the Applicant.
Hence this application.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant

3
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. He submits that the FIR does not disclose any specific
overt act or distinct role attributable to the Applicant and that
the allegations against him are general and omnibus in
nature. It is further submitted that the Applicant has no
connection with the alleged incident and has never been
involved in any such activity. He further submits that the
prosecution case is primarily based upon the statements of
interested witnesses, whose credibility can be tested only
during trial. He also submits that the alleged incident
occurred on 20.06.2026 at about 11:00 p.m., whereas the FIR
was lodged on 21.06.2026 at about 2:56 p.m., after an
unexplained delay of nearly 16 hours, which creates doubt
regarding the prosecution version and affords scope for
deliberation and false implication. He lastly submits that the
Applicant is a young person, is in jail since 28.06.2026 and
the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, he may
be released on bail.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the charge-sheet has not yet
been filed, the Applicant is alleged to have caused a
contusion in the occipital region of the injured and he has no
criminal antecedents. Learned Counsel for the Applicant,

4
however, submits that the charge-sheet has already been
filed.
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 in custody
since 28.06.2026, the Applicant has no criminal antecedents,
the charge-sheet has been filed as submitted by learned
Counsel for the Applicant and the trial is likely to take
considerable time, without further commenting anything upon
the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion
that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the
bail application is allowed.
7. Let Applicant- Sameer Tandon involved in Crime No.
461/2026 registered at Police Station – Sirgitti, District
Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 115(2), 296,
351(3), 333, 324(2), 326(G), 191(1) and 191(2) of BNS be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two
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

5
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.
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