BHOLA YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010336022026 2026:CGHC:38600

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8048 of 2026
Bhola Yadav S/o Bhim Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Kailash Nagar,
Titurdih, Durg, Kandara Para, Tehsil And District- Durg, (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- Bori, District-
Durg (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
01.09.2026
1. This is the first 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. 41/2026 registered at Police Station-
Bori, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.04.2026, while returning
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
from Village Madiapar, bus bearing registration No. CG-08-AV-
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
4100, being driven by the applicant/driver Bhola Yadav, was

2
allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive
speed, resulting in an accident in which 19 passengers sustained
injuries. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the
applicant/complainant Devendra Yadav, Crime No. 41/2026 was
initially registered at Police Station Bori for offences punishable
under Sections 281 and 125(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During
investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded,
wherein it was alleged that the driver had been repeatedly warned
not to drive the bus at a high speed, but he failed to heed such
warnings. It is further alleged that an empty liquor bottle was found
in the driver’s cabin, giving rise to an apprehension that the driver
had been driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. During
the course of investigation, Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita was added, while the offence under Section 184 of the
Motor Vehicles Act was deleted. The bus bearing registration No.
CG-08-AV-4100 and the empty liquor bottle were seized during the
investigation. Hence, the present bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
submitted that the applicant is the sole earning member of his family
and that no incriminating article has been seized from his exclusive
possession. He further submits that the injuries sustained by the
complainant/injured are simple in nature and there is no specific
allegation establishing any intention or knowledge on the part of the
applicant to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause

3
death, which are essential ingredients for attracting Section 110 of
the BNS. It is contended that the FIR was initially registered under
Sections 281 and 125(A) of the BNS and Section 184 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, and that Section 110 of the BNS was subsequently
added during investigation. It is further submitted that mere
occurrence of an accident or driving at a high speed, by itself, does
not establish the requisite degree of rashness, negligence, intention
or knowledge contemplated under Section 110 of the BNS. He
submits that the applicant himself sustained serious injuries in the
accident, informed the police about the occurrence and, as advised
by the police, proceeded for medical treatment. Despite being under
treatment, he did not abscond and voluntarily appeared before
Police Station Bori on 22.06.2026 and cooperated with the
investigation. He further submits that the present applicant has no
previous criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has been filed
before the competent Court, he is in jail since 22.06.2026 and the
trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he
prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted
before the competent Court. He further submits that the allegations
against the applicant are serious in nature, as he was driving the
passenger bus in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive
speed, resulting in an accident in which 19 passengers sustained
injuries. It is further submitted that, during investigation, witnesses
have stated that the applicant had been repeatedly warned not to

4
drive the bus at high speed, but he failed to heed such warnings. He
also submits that an empty liquor bottle was recovered from the
driver’s cabin, which raises a serious suspicion regarding the
applicant’s condition while driving the vehicle. It is contended that,
considering the number of injured passengers and the
circumstances in which the accident occurred, the addition of
Section 110 of the BNS is justified and the matter requires proper
adjudication during trial. He submits that the defence taken by the
applicant regarding the nature of injuries, the manner of driving and
his medical condition are matters to be tested on the basis of
evidence during trial and cannot be conclusively considered at the
stage of bail. On these grounds, he prays for rejection of the bail
application.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of
allegations and the material available on record, and the fact that
though the allegation against the applicant is that he drove the
passenger bus rashly and negligently at an excessive speed,
resulting in an accident in which 19 passengers sustained injuries,
and that an empty liquor bottle was found in the driver’s cabin, but
also considering the fact that the injuries sustained by the injured
persons are stated to be simple in nature, the applicant himself
sustained injuries in the said accident and remained under
medical treatment, the applicant has already cooperated with the

5
investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed and, he has no
criminal antecedents and the applicant is languishing in jail since
22.06.2026 and the conclusion of the trial may take some more
time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant
is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the
applicant - Bhola Yadav, involved in Crime No. 41/2026 registered
at Police Station- Bori, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, be 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 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.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail

6
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.
8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rahul Dewangan