SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 266

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, MANMOHAN, JJ
GAURAV HABLANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2026|SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.20121/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Pratiksha Tripathi, Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, Mr. Amit Sangwan
For the Respondents: Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Mr. Ambuj Swaroop, Ms. Rajnandani Kumari, Mr. Kapil Katare, Mr. Saksham Gahoi, Mr. Vishwas Sharma, Mr. Prashant Singh

The court granted bail considering the appellant's age, custody duration, and the nature of the offences.

Headnote:The appeal arises from a High Court order rejecting the appellant's bail prayer related to FIR No.288 of 2025. The appellant, a 21-year-old, has been in custody for eight months. The court finds the appellant eligible for bail considering the nature of offences and the co-accused's bail grants.

Result: The appeal is allowed, and the High Court's order is set aside, enabling the appellant's release on bail subject to trial court conditions.

Judgement Key Points

Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside ... tags) and any specific query or analysis request. I'll extract key points and cite references as instructed (e.g., (!) (!) ).


Table of Content
1. details of the appellant's case and custody. (Para 3 , 4)
2. arguments about the appellant's eligibility for bail. (Para 5 , 6)
3. outcome of the appeal granting bail. (Para 7 , 8)

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal arises from an order dated 13th October, 2025 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur rejecting the regular bail prayer of the appellant in connection with First Information Report (FIR) No.288 of 2025, registered at Police Station Bhatapara (City), District Baloda – Bazar, Bhatapara, Chhatisgarh.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is a young boy aged about 21 years and he has been in custody for last nearly eight months. It has also been submitted that co-accused have been admitted to bail.

5. The Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Having regard to the nature of offences as also the tender age of the accused and the period of incarceration, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail, pending trial.

7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order of the High Court rejecting the bail prayer of the appellant is set aside.

8. The appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order which is placed on the file.

3. The operative part of the signed order reads thus:

“7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order of the High Court rejecting the bail prayer of the appellant is set aside.

8. The appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top