RAMAKANT MINJ vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Court
Chhattisgarh High Court

1

CGHC010331952026 2026:CGHC:38615
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No.8068 of 2026
1 - Ramakant Minj S/o Nankiram Minj Aged About 42 Years R/o
House No.77, Tanki Basti, Kosamanara, Raigarh, District- Raigarh
(C.G.) (Age And Address Father's Name Wrongly Mentioned In
Annx. A/1)
2 - Shyamlal Sarthi S/o Kedaram Sarthi Aged About 54 Years R/o
House No.123, Ward No.8, Jogideepa, Raigarh, District- Raigarh
(C.G.) (Address And Father's Name Wrongly Mentioned In Annx.
A/1)
3 - Anuj Bhagat S/o Shyamlal Bhagat Aged About 39 Years R/o
Fundurdihari, Police Station- Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District-
Surguja (C.G.) (Age And Address Wrongly Mentioned In Annx. A/1)
... Applicants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
SISTLA
NEELIMA
Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant
VISHNU
PRIYA
Digitally signed by
SISTLA NEELIMA
VISHNU PRIYA
Date: 2026.09.01
15:43:55 +0530

2
_____________________________________________________
For Applicants :Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Sourabh Sahu, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
01.09.2026
st
1.
The Applicants have preferred this 1 Bail Application under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in
connection with Crime No.45/2026 registered at Police
Station – Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offences
under Sections 308(2), 333, 119(1), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of
BNS.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Angad S/o
Shivratan Ram, lodged a written complaint against unknown
persons alleging that on 20.04.2026 at about 11:00 a.m.,
while he was at his house along with his wife, four men and a
woman arrived in a white vehicle, wearing black coats. They
allegedly enquired about his occupation and demanded a
licence. When the complainant stated that he did not
possess any licence but had a document relating to his
traditional practice, they allegedly told him that the document
was of no use and demanded Rs.3,00,000/-, threatening that
otherwise he and his wife would be sent to jail. It is further

3
alleged that the woman slapped the complainant's wife and
forcibly entered the house and took away Rs.50,000/- in cash
from the almirah. Accordingly, the offences as mentioned
above were registered against the Applicant. Hence this
application.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the
Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in
the present case. It is submitted that the FIR was initially
registered against unknown persons, the names of the
Applicants do not find mention therein and the Applicants are
members of the Anti-Crime Anti-Corruption Human Rights
Organization (ACACHRO) and were allegedly performing
their duties in connection with the said organization. It is
further submitted that there was no demand of Rs.3,00,000/-
by the Applicants and that the complainant has lodged a false
case to avoid proceedings against him for allegedly carrying
on business without a licence. It is further submitted that no
seizure has been made from the Applicants and co-accused
Anila Aishwarya Minj has already been granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 22.07.2026 passed in MCRC
No.5526/2026, the Applicants have one previous criminal
antecedent of similar nature, however, the investigation is
complete and charge-sheet has been filed and the Applicants

4
are in custody since 30.04.2026, therefore, they may be
released on bail on the ground of parity.
4. Contrarily, 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,
particularly the fact that the FIR was initially registered
against unknown persons, no seizure has been made from
the Applicants, co-accused Anila Aishwarya Minj has already
been granted bail by this Court on 22.07.2026 in MCRC
No.5526/2026 and the Applicants are similarly placed, the
investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed,
the Applicants are in custody since 30.04.2026 and the trial is
likely to take considerable time, without commenting on the
merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that
it is a fit case to allow the application on the ground of parity.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
7. Let Applicants- Ramakant Minj, Shyamlal Sarthi and Anuj
Bhagat involved in Crime No.45/2026 registered at Police
Station – Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offences
under Sections 308(2), 333, 119(1), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of

5
BNS be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond
with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of
the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant/s shall file an undertaking
to the effect that he/she/they 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/s shall remain present
before the trial court on each date fixed,
either personally or through his/her/their
counsel. In case of his/her/their absence,
without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him/her/them under
Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant/s misuse/s the
liberty of bail during trial and in order to
secure his/her/their presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is
issued and the applicant/s fail/s to appear
before the court on the date fixed in such
proclamation, then, the trial court shall
initiate proceedings against him/her/them,
in accordance with law, under Section 209
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant/s 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/s 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/them 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