Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 22255
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
KRISHNA KUMAR PRAJAPATI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRC No. 6424 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Md. Armaan Memon
For the Respondents: Atanu Ghosh
The court granted regular bail based on the principle of parity, as several co-accused persons in the same crime had already been released on bail.
Headnote:The applicant sought regular bail under S. 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences punishable under S. 103, 190, and 191(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Samhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that a patient at a rehabilitation center was assaulted by staff and other patients, resulting in multiple injuries. The court noted that the applicant was also a patient at the center and that the incident occurred while staff attempted to control the deceased who had become violent. The primary issue was whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail given the nature of the allegations and the status of other accused persons. The court reasoned that since several co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to similar relief. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of assault and death of a patient within a rehabilitation center. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. request for bail based on the applicant's status as a patient and parity with co-accused. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. grant of bail based on the principle of parity with previously released co-accused. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. imposition of conditions for the grant of regular bail to ensure trial attendance. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER ON BOARD
1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 171/2025 registered at Police Station – Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 103 , 190, 191(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Samhita, 2023 .
2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 26.03.2025 report was lodged by wife of deceased Varsha stating that when her husband Vijay Kumar was admitted in nasha mukti kendra there was no injury on his person. On 29.03.2025, when upon information she went to see her husband she found multiple injuries on the body of her husband and thereafter CCTV and DCR of the nasha mukti kendra was seen, it revealed that staff of nasha mukti kendra and other patients have assaulted deceased Vijay Kumar. Based on the report, aforementioned crime was registered and applicant was also arrested along with others on 06.04.2025.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant was also admitted in the said nasha mukti kendra and was taking treatment and he was also a patient. From the material available in the charge-sheet, it is apparent that deceased Vijay Kumar, who was also patient in the nasha mukti kendra became violent at the time of alleged incident and the in-charge or the staff present in the nasha mukti kendra tried to control him along with others and in that time deceased suffered some injuries. There is no direct evidence against applicant that applicant has assaulted deceased. Applicant is in jail since 06.04.2025. Only 7 witnesses out of 17 have been examined. Trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be enlarged on bail. He also contended that in the same crime, other co-accused persons namely Manoj Kumar Karsh, in MCRC No. 1990/2026, Santosh Goswami, in MCRC No. 2642 of 2026, Amit Tigga, in MCRC No. 3612 of 2026, Tenzing Changpa, in MCRC No. 3843 of 2026, Virendra, in MCRC No. 4680 of 2026 and Rajdev, in MCRC No. 4527 of 2026 have been enlarged on bail by this Court.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties as also the fact that other co-accused persons as mentioned in preceding paragraph have been enlarged on bail, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.
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 ₹ 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 Sec
