Rejection of bail in communal violence cases involving arson and assault on public servants.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the accusations and the principle of parity

The court held

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the bail application. The Court held that given the gravity of the offence and the manner of its commission, the applicants were not entitled to regular bail

It also directed

The trial court was granted liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously

01Facts

The four applicants filed their first bail application following their arrest on April 1, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 31/2026

¶ 1, 3

The prosecution alleged that following a communal provocation involving one Aarif Khan (who had previously damaged a Shivaling), a mob of villagers, including the applicants, attacked the complainant (Kasmuddin Quraishi), his family, and police personnel

¶ 2

The mob allegedly used weapons like iron rods, sticks, and knives, and committed arson by setting houses and vehicles on fire

¶ 2

A charge-sheet was filed on April 7, 2026, against 22 persons, while 8 remain absconding

¶ 2

The applicants sought bail on grounds of parity with other cases, lack of specific allegations, and the completion of the investigation

¶ 3, 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the accusations and the principle of parity

¶ 1, 7

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

¶ 1

The court considered the severity of offences charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 296 (disturbing religious assembly), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), 332(b) (c) (house-trespass), and 191 (rioting)

¶ 1, 8

The decision was guided by the judicial principle that bail may be refused regardless of the filing of a charge-sheet if the gravity of the offence, the manner of commission, and the role of the accused suggest a threat to public order or justice

¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 16 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 15 provisions

Section 3 Section 109 Section 115 Section 117 Section 118 Section 126 Section 190 Section 191 Section 238 Section 296 Section 309 Section 326 Section 331 Section 332 Section 351

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the applicants' plea for parity and the argument regarding the completion of the investigation. It noted that the allegations were "serious and grave," involving active participation in an unlawful assembly, physical assault on both civilians and police personnel, and significant destruction of property through arson

¶ 7

The Court highlighted that bail applications for other co-accused (Gulshan Kumar Sahu, Narendra Sahu, etc.) in the same crime had already been rejected on merits on May 7, 2026, in MCRC No. 4277/2026 and MCRC No. 4282/2026

¶ 5, 7

Since the applicants stood on a "similar footing" to the co-accused whose bail was denied, the court found no grounds to distinguish their roles or grant relief despite their claims of being innocent villagers or the lengthy list of 815 witnesses

¶ 3, 7

05Holding

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the bail application. The Court held that given the gravity of the offence and the manner of its commission, the applicants were not entitled to regular bail

¶ 7, 8

The trial court was granted liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously

¶ 9

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF