SHYAMLAL SARTHI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010330682026 2026:CGHC:38566
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7895 of 2026
1 - Shyamlal Sarthi S/o Kedaram Sarthi Aged About 54 Years R/o House
No. 123, Ward No.8, Jogideepa Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
2 - Ramakant Minj S/o Nankiram Minj Aged About 42 Years R/o House
No.77, Tanki Basti, Kosamanara Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
3 - Anuj Bhagat S/o Shyamlal Bhagat Aged About 39 Years R/o
Fundurdihari, Police Station- Gandhinagar, Ambikapur. District- Surguja
(C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police, Station-
Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicants : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
01/09/2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail
to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime
No. 139/2026 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja

2
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 333,
61(2), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
2. As per the prosecution case in brief is that on 21.04.2026, the
complainant Surendra lodged a written report before the concerned
police station alleging therein that at about 12:30 PM, six unknown
persons came to his house claiming themselves to be members of a
Human Rights Organization, forcibly entered and searched his
house and after finding an empty container filled with water,
accused him of manufacturing liquor. It is further alleged that the
said persons threatened the complainant with implication in a
criminal case and demanded Rs.20,000/-, out of which, due to fear,
the complainant paid Rs.4,000/- in cash. On the basis of the said
report, Crime No.139/2026 was initially registered against unknown
persons and during investigation, the present applicants were
arrested on 22.04.2026. After completion of investigation, charge-
sheet has been filed before the competent Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
further submitted that each of the applicants have one criminal
antecedent of similar nature, which has been duly disclosed and
explained in the bail application. Learned counsel further submits
that the applicants have been implicated subsequently, whereas
their names do not find place in the FIR which was initially lodged
against unknown persons. It is also submitted that the alleged
recovery of Rs.4,000/- has been made jointly from the applicants
and there is no specific recovery attributable to any individual

3
applicant. He further submits that co-accused Anila Aishwarya Minj
has already been granted bail in another crime bearing Crime
No.45/2026 in which the applicants have also been made accused
and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the
competent Court and the trial is likely to take some time for its
conclusion therefore, he prays for grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for
grant of bail and submits that each of the applicants has one
criminal antecedent of similar nature, which is still pending. It is
further submitted that a joint seizure of Rs.4,000/- has been effected
from the applicants and the allegations against them are serious in
nature. However, he submits that the charge-sheet has already
been filed but considering the seriousness of the allegations and the
criminal antecedents of the applicants, they are not entitled to be
released on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and
gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants, the fact
that during investigation, the alleged recovery of Rs.4,000/- has
been made jointly from the applicants and further considering the
fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the
competent Court, coupled with the fact that each of the applicants
has one criminal antecedent of similar nature which has been
disclosed and explained in the bail application and further
considering that co-accused Anila Aishwarya Minj has already been

4
granted bail in Crime No.45/2026 in which the applicants have also
been made accused, I am of the considered view that the
applicants may be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly the bail application is allowed .
8. Let the applicants – Shyamlal Sarthi, Ramakant Minj and Anuj
Bhagat involved in Crime No. 139/2026 registered at Police Station
Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under
Sections 308(2), 333, 61(2), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect
that 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
their counsel. In case of their absence, without
sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against
them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure their presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued
and the applicants fail to appear before the court on

5
the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against them, in
accordance with law, under Section 209 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are
deliberated 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 them in
accordance with law.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith.
- S/- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal