PANKAJ KUMAR vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Court
Chhattisgarh High Court

1

CGHC010403192026 2026:CGHC:46750
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9770 of 2026
1 - Pankaj Kumar S/o Dhurwa Ram Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 1,
Dewarbhat, Post Jamarua, Thana And Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, P.S. Daundi, Distt. Balod,
Chhattisgarh. .. Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
04.11.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 82/2026, registered at Police
Station Daundi District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 106(1), 105, 281 of BNS and 184, 66/192 146/196 and
192(2) of M.V. Act
2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.05.2026, the deceased
Priyanshu, aged about 16 years, along with 13-14 other persons, had
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2026.11.05
10:43:11
+0530
travelled in a pickup vehicle bearing registration No. CG-19-BE-4436
from Village Mulluguda to Village Harradula to attend a Chhatti

2
ceremony. After the programme, while they were returning at about
11:30 p.m., near Gotul Munda-Beloda Road, the driver of the said
vehicle drove it in a rash, negligent and dangerous manner, as a result
of which the deceased Priyanshu fell from the vehicle and sustained
grievous injuries. During the course of treatment, he succumbed to his
injuries at the hospital. Pursuant to the aforesaid incident, the offences
punishable under Section 106 (1) and 281 of BNS and Section 184
and 66/192 of M.V. Act were registered against the present applicant.
3 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the ap­
plicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further sub­
mits that, at the time of filing of the charge-sheet, the police added
Section 105 of the BNS against the present applicant, pursuant to
which he was taken into custody. He would further submit that, in the
absence of the requisite intention, the offence punishable under Sec­
tion 105 of the BNS is not made out against the applicant. According
to learned counsel, the incident occurred due to negligence on the
part of the present applicant and, therefore, Section 106 of the BNS
was rightly mentioned in the FIR. He would further submit that the
charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant is in jail since 22.09.2026
and has no criminal antecedents. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail
to the applicant.
4 On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
and submits that the present applicant was driving the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed it against a standing tree, re­
sulting in the death of a 16-year-old child. He would further submit
that, considering the nature of the incident and the death of the minor

3
child, the police have rightly added Section 105 of the BNS. Therefore,
he prays for rejection of the bail application.
5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case di­
ary.
6 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly the contents of the FIR and the statements of the
witnesses, and further taking note of the fact that the charge-sheet
has been filed, the deceased lost his life in a motor accident, the
applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since
22.09.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time,
without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to
grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
7 Let applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
50,000/- with one surety 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 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
counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause,
the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

4
(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 him in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Jyoti