GURJEET RANDHAWA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010426662026 2026:CGHC:46280
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 10348 of 2026
Gurjeet Randhawa S/o Balwant Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Tatibandh,
Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station
Singhoda, Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
02/11/2026
1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
87/2026 registered at Police Station – Singhoda, District-
Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 109(1), 189,
190, 351, 126, 127 & 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.08.2026, the
complainant, Mohd. Mohsin Sheikh, lodged a written complaint at
Police Station Singhoda, alleging that in May 2025, he became

2
acquainted with the accused Manish Agrawal through Avesh Memon.
The complainant and Avesh Memon made inquiries about the wooden
business of Manish Agrawal, as the complainant was also interested
in starting such a business. On coming to know about this, Manish
Agrawal allegedly threatened the complainant with dire
consequences. Thereafter, on 19.05.2025, while the complainant and
Avesh Memon were returning from Bargarh to Saraipali in an Ertiga
car, Manish Agrawal and his companions allegedly followed and
intercepted their vehicle between Chhuipali and Khamharpali. They
dragged the complainant and Avesh Memon out of the vehicle and
assaulted them with clubs, beer bottles and fists, with the intention to
kill them. Somehow, the complainant and Avesh Memon managed to
escape from the spot and save their lives. On the basis of the said
complaint, the aforesaid offences were registered against the
applicant and other co-accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
further submits that the name of the applicant was not mentioned in
the FIR. Three accused persons have already been granted the
benefit of bail by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2026 passed in
M.Cr.C. No. 10016 of 2026. He further submits that the applicant is on
a better footing than the main accused and is in jail since 02.10.2026.
Therefore, he prays that the applicant be released on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by
learned counsel for the applicant. However, he does not dispute that
the co-accused persons have already been granted the benefit of bail.

3
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of the allegations, submissions made by learned counsel for
the respective parties, the charge-sheet has already been filed, other
co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.
No.10016 of 2026 vide order dated 27.10.2026, the applicant has
been in jail since 02.10.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time,
without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined
to allow this application for grant of bail.
7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed . It is directed that the applicant
shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the
sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of
the Court on the conditions that-
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
(d) 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

4
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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE
vaibhav