01Facts
The applicant was arrested on December 10, 2025, following a written complaint by Yogesh Kumar Dewangan regarding an incident on November 20, 2025
¶ 2-3It was alleged that the applicant and co-accused assaulted the complainant’s guests near Gautam Hotel with a rod and wooden stick (Balli) following a dispute over a previous altercation during Ganesh Puja
¶ 2One victim, Surendra Navle, sustained injuries to his hand and head
¶ 2Crime No. 363/2025 was registered at Police Station Dongargaon, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed
¶ 2The applicant sought regular bail, noting that cross-reports had been filed and the parties had reached an amicable settlement
¶ 302Issues
i.Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given his criminal antecedents and the subsequent amicable settlement between the parties
¶ 1, 703Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail
¶ 1Sections 296 (Obscene acts), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 191(2) (Rioting), 49, and 109 (Abetment) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
¶ 1Section 269 BNS (Failure to appear), Section 209 BNS (False claim in court), and Section 351 BNSS (Recording of statement) as part of the mandatory bail conditions
¶ 9Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483Section 84Section 351
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 296Section 115Section 191Section 49Section 109Section 269Section 209
04Reasoning
The court balanced the gravity of the allegations—specifically the assault with weapons—against the applicant’s period of detention since December 2025 and the filing of the charge-sheet
¶ 7Although the State opposed bail citing four criminal antecedents of the applicant (under IPC, BNS, and the Arms Act), the court placed significant weight on the fact that the dispute arose from a cross-incident and had been "amicably settled" between the parties
¶ 3, 5, 7The counsel for the objector (complainant) explicitly stated there was no objection to the bail grant, as the complainant's party had also been granted bail in the cross-FIR
¶ 5The court concluded that since the investigation was complete and the trial would be prolonged, further detention was unnecessary
¶ 705Holding
The High Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of Sujal Mongare
¶ 8-9The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail subject to furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions, including: (i) no adjournments during evidence; (ii) mandatory presence at all trial dates; and (iii) strict compliance with procedural appearance under the BNS, failing which the trial court may treat the default as an abuse of liberty
¶ 9Original Court PDF
SUJAL MONGAREvsTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
