Amit Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1

2026:CGHC:16474

Digitally signed by ARPAN ARPAN SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2026.04.13 19:09:55 +0530 MCRC No. 2145 of 2026

¶4

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ramkumar Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase- 2, Saraswati Shishu Mandir Rohinipuram P.S. Dd Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001, (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail Raipur (C.G.)

¶5

--- Applicant

¶6

versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police StationDevendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Respondent(s)

¶9

MCRC No. 2465 of 2026

¶10

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ramkumar Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/okanchanganga Phase- Saraswati Shishu Mandir Rohinipuram. Ps Dd Nagerraipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

--- Applicant

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer-Police station- Kotwali Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

MCRC No. 2374 of 2026

¶16

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ramkumar Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase-2, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Rohinipuram, P.S. Dd Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001, (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.)

--- Applicant

Versus

2

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationTelibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

--- Respondent(s)

¶22

MCRC No. 2275 of 2026

¶23

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ramkumar Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase-2, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Rohinipuram, P.S. Dd Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur Chhattisgarh)

¶24

--- Applicant

¶25

Versus

¶26

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶27

--- Respondent(s)

¶28

MCRC No. 2277 of 2026

¶29

Amit Baghel S/o Ramkumar Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchangaga Phase -2, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Rohinipuram, P.S. Dd Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001, ( Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh )

¶30

--- Applicant

¶31

Versus

¶32

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶33

--- Respondent(s)

¶34

MCRC No. 2281 of 2026

¶35

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ramkumar Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase-2, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Rohinipuram, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001, (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh)

¶36

--- Applicant

¶37

Versus

¶38

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶39

3

¶40

--- Respondent(s)

¶41

MCRC No. 2185 of 2026

¶42

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ramkumar Baghel, Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase-2, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Rohinipuram, P.S. D D Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.- 492001 (Currenttly Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur C.G.)

¶43

--- Applicant

¶44

Versus

¶45

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶46

--- Respondent(s)

¶47

MCRC No. 2204 of 2026

¶48

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ramkumar Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase 2, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Rohinipuram, P.S. Dd Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001, (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.)

¶49

--- Applicant

¶50

Versus

¶51

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶52

--- Respondent(s)

¶53

MCRC No. 2200 of 2026

¶54

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ramkumar Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase-2, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Rohinipuram, P.S. Dd Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001, (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.)

¶55

--- Applicant

¶56

Versus

¶57

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kotwali, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶58

--- Respondent(s)

¶59

MCRC No. 2194 of 2026

¶60

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ramkumar Baghel, Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase- 2, Saraswati, Shishu Mandir Rohinipuram P.S. D.D.

¶61

4

¶62

Nagar, Raipur , District- Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001 (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.)

¶63

Versus

¶64

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Telibandha Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶65

--- Respondent(s)

¶66

MCRC No. 2192 of 2026

¶67

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ramkumar Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase-2, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Rohinipuram, P.S. Dd Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh- 492001, (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.))

¶68

--- Applicant

¶69

Versus

¶70

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationTelibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶71

--- Respondent(s)

¶72

MCRC No. 2191 of 2026

¶73

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ramkumar Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase-2, Saraswati Shishu Mandir Rohinipuram P.S.Dd Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh -492001, (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail Raipur (C.G.)

¶74

--- Applicant

¶75

Versus

¶76

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station - Devendra Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

¶77

--- Respondent(s)

¶78

MCRC No. 2184 of 2026

¶79

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ramkumar Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase-2, Saraswati Shishu Mandir Rohinipuram, P.S. Dd Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 492001 (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur)

--- Applicant

Versus

5

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶84

--- Respondent(s)

¶85

MCRC No. 2150 of 2026

¶86

Amit Baghel S/o Shri Ram Kumar Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase -2 Saraswati Shishu Mandir Rohinipuram P.S. Dd Nagar Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001 (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail Raipur (C.G.)

¶87

--- Applicant

¶88

Versus

¶89

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station - Kotwali, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶90

--- Respondent(s)

¶91

For Applicant	: Mr. Harshwardhan Parghania, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Objector	: Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate assisted by
	Mr. Hemant Lohani in MCRC No. 2145/2026
	and Ms. Kavita Bansal in MCRC No.
	2204/2026

¶92

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶93

Order on Board

¶94

09/04/2026

¶95

1. Since all the above captioned bail applications are filed by same accused for grant of regular bail for similar nature of offence, though registered at different Police Stations under different crime numbers, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶96

6

¶97

2. The details of these first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for short, the BNSS ) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who is in jail are as under :-

¶98

MCRC	Crime No.	Name of Police	Offence u/S	Date of
Nos.		Station		arrest
2145/	208/2025	P.S. Devendra Nagar,	299 BNS	05.12.2025
2026		Raipur
2150/	340/2025	P.S. Kotwali Raipur	299 BNS	02.01.2026
2026
2184/ 2026	338/2025	P.S. Kotwali Raipur	299 BNS	02.01.2026
2185/	241/2025	P.S. Devendra Nagar,	299 BNS	08.12.2025
2026		Raipur
2191/	240/2025	P.S. Devendra Nagar,	299 BNS	08.12.2025
2026		Raipur
2192/	786/2025	P.S. Telibandha,	299 BNS	30.12.2025
2026		Raipur
2194/	695/2025	P.S. Telibandha,	299, 302,	17.12.2025
2026		Raipur	353(1)(c)BNS
2200/ 2026	339/2025	P.S. Kotwali, Raipur	299, BNS	02.01.2026
2204/	788/2025	P.S. Telibandha,	299, 302,	30.12.2025
2026		Raipur	353(1)(c)BNS
2275/	787/2025	P.S. Telibandha,	299, 302,	30.12.2025
2026		Raipur	353(1)(c) BNS
2277/	242/2025	P.S. Devendra Nagar,	196(1), 299,	08.12.2025
2026		Raipur	353(2)BNS
2281/	05/2026	P.S. Devendra Nagar,	196(1), 299,	12.01.2026
2026		Raipur	353(2)BNS
2374/	699/2025	P.S. Telibandha,	299 BNS	17.12.2025
2026		Raipur
2465/ 2026	243/2025	P.S. Kotwali Raipur	299 BNS	02.01.2026

¶99

3. The prosecution story in brief, is that an incident is alleged to have occurred on 26.10.2025, followed by circulation of a video/interview on

¶100

7

¶101

27.10.2025 in which the Applicant is purported to have made objectionable remarks concerning late Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya, late Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Maharaja Agrasen and Shri Jhulelal, thereby allegedly hurting the sentiments of the Agarwal and Sindhi communities and disturbing communal harmony. On the basis of a written complaint and examination of the said video, an FIR under Crime No.208/2025 was registered at Police Station, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and the applicant was arrested on 05.12.2025 and thereafter he has been further implicated in aforementioned other cases/FIRs registered at different police stations arising out of the same statement.

¶102

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that no prima facie case is made out, as the entire prosecution rests on an alleged video/interview without any material establishing requisite mens rea . It is contended that the statement was made in the immediate backdrop of the vandalisation of the “Chhattisgarh Mahtari” statue and was merely an expression of anguish, devoid of any deliberate intent to outrage sentiments or promote disharmony. The FIRs, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and are based on vague assertions of “hurt sentiments.” It is further submitted that the evidence is purely electronic and already in the public domain, the charge-sheets have already been filed, and therefore continued custody is unwarranted. The Applicant has also been subjected to successive arrests in multiple FIRs arising out of the same statement, rendering his liberty illusory. It is contended that the offences are punishable up to three years (or less), making prolonged pre-trial incarceration disproportionate. The “triple test” stands satisfied, and in the absence of any tangible material to show likelihood of tampering or influencing witnesses, bail deserves to be granted. He

¶103

8

¶104

further submits that as per his knowledge the applicant is having total 33 criminal antecedents, which includes the present 14 cases. The details of the other 19 cases with their present status are as follows:

¶105

S.No.	FIR /	Case No.	Offence under Sections	Status
1	378/2024	at P.S. City	147, 148, 149,	Pending (Charge
	Kotwali, (C.G.)	Balodabazar	186, 332, 353, 333, 307, 440, 435, 395, 120B, 152 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 03, 04 of the Prevention of Damage to Public PropertyAct, 1984	sheet) has not been filled)
2	379/2024 Kotwali, (C.G.)	at P.S. City Balodabazar	147, 148, 149, 186, 332, 353, 307, 435, 436, 120B, 294, 506 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 03, 04 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and section 02 of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971	Pending (Charge sheet) has not been filled)
3	380/2024 Kotwali, (C.G.)	at P.S. City Balodabazar	147, 148, 149, 294,307,332,333,3 53,427,435,436,4 40,120-B of the IPC, 1860 and Section 03, 04 of the Prevention of Damage to Public	Pending (Charge sheet) has not been filled)

¶106

9

¶107

4	269/2023 at Deendayal Raipur	P.S. Nagar,	Property 289 of the IPC, 1860	Pending (prosecution evidence)
5	263/2023 at P.S Neora	. Tilda	452, 294, 323, 427, 34 of the IPC, 1860	Disposed (Acquittal)
6	241/2022 P.S. B	alod	295A and 153A of the IPC, 1860	Pending (Prosecution Evidence)
7	42/2019		147, 149, 153A (1)	Pending
	P.S. Dipka, Korb	a	(a), 153A (1)(b), 294, 506 of the IPC, 1860	(Prosecution Evidence)
8	175/2019 at P.S.		147, 294, 341,	Pending
	147, 294, 341, the IPC, 1860 Pending (Pros Evidence) Tik Raipur Cr. Ca 9147/2023	506 of ecution rapara, se No	506, of the IPC, 1860	(Prosecution Evidence)
9	451/2016 at Dharsiwa, Raipu	P.S. r	147, 294, 341, 506, of the IPC, 1860	Pending (Prosecution Evidence)
10	359/2016 Cr.	Case	294, 323, 506 and	Pending
	No.23990/2016	JMFC	34 of the IPC,	(Prosecution
	Raipur		1860	Evidence)
11	421/2016 Cr. No.5799/2017 Raipur	Case JMFC	341 and 147 of the IPC, 1860	Pending (Prosecution Evidence)
12	448/2016 Cr. No.5798/2017 Raipur	Case JMFC	341 and 147 of the IPC, 1860	Pending (Prosecution Evidence)
13	323/2017 Cr.	Case	294, 153, 201, and	Pending
	No.6898/2017 Raipur	JMFC	34 of the IPC, 1860	(Prosecution Evidence)
14	175/2023 Cr.	Case	147, 188, and 341	Pending
	No.9147/2023	JMFC	of the IPC, 1860	(Prosecution

¶108

10

¶109

	Raipur			Evidence)
15	37/2020 at P.S. Kharsiya Raigarh	153b of the	, 505, 506b, IPC, 1860	Pending
16	458/2020 Sessions Case No. 318/2021 5th addl. Dist. and sessions judge, Raipur	294, 148, 447, 353 1860	506, 147, 149, 427, 436, 186 and of the IPC,	Charge
17	112/2022 Gunderdehi, Balod	147, 294, 325, 307 1860	148, 149, 506, 323, 427, 452 and of the IPC,	Pending ( for Prosecution Evidence)
18	518/2022 Cr. Case No.535/2023 JMFC Raipur	384 IPC,	and 34 of the 1860	Pending ( for Accused Presence)
19	269/2023 Cr. Case No.10220/2023 JMFC Raipur	289 1860	of the IPC,	Pending (Prosecution Evidence)

¶110

5. Lastly, in the alternative, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in all these cases, the applicant has been granted bail and as such, he prays that if this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail, at least, the applicant may be released on parole for a limited period as this Court may deem fit.

¶111

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for the objectors jointly oppose the bail applications, contending that the Applicant made highly objectionable and offensive statements targeting revered personalities, thereby prima facie hurting the sentiments of the Agrawal and Sindhi communities and disturbing communal harmony. It is submitted that the statements, viewed in their entirety, reflect a deliberate and reckless disregard for social sensitivity, and the plea of being taken out of context is a matter for trial. Learned State counsel argues that the FIRs disclose the essential ingredients of

¶112

11

¶113

the alleged offences and that the investigation, based on the complaint and video material, has been duly conducted. It is further contended that the Applicant’s involvement in multiple FIRs arising from the same episode indicates a pattern requiring cautious consideration, with a possibility of influencing witnesses or repeating such acts. Learned State counsel also submits that filing of the charge-sheet does not entitle the Applicant to bail given the serious nature of allegations affecting public order, and that the arrest was lawful, with alleged procedural lapses being insufficient to mitigate the gravity of offence. It is further contend that the present applicant is having 33 criminal antecedents. Accordingly, it is urged that the existence of a prima facie case and the seriousness of the allegations disentitle the Applicant from the grant of bail.

¶114

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶115

8. Taking into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case, having considered the rival submissions and perused the case diary, this Court finds that the allegations against the Applicant, relating to objectionable statements against revered personalities, prima facie disclose an offence affecting communal harmony and public order. At this stage, the material on record, including the video/interview, cannot be examined in detail but is sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the applicant. Taking into consideration the fact that multiple FIRs have arisen from the same episode and the possibility of influencing witnesses or repeating such acts cannot be ruled out, and considering the seriousness of the allegations and their impact on society and also taking into consideration that other than these 14 cases, the applicant is having 18 criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit

¶116

12

¶117

of bail to the applicant, as such, all the bail applications are liable to be rejected.

¶118

9. Accordingly, the aforementioned first bail applications of the applicant namely Amit Baghel , involved in Crime No.208/2025 registered at Police Station, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.), Crime No.340/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Raipur, Crime No.338/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Raipur, Crime No.241/2025 registered at Police Station Devendra Nagar Raipur, Crime No.240/2025 registered at Police Station Devendra Nagar Raipur, Crime No.786/2025 registered at Police Station Telibandha Raipur, Crime No.695/2025 registered at Police Station Telibandha Raipur, Crime No.339/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Raipur, Crime No.788/2025 registered at Police Station Telibandha Raipur, Crime No.787/2025 registered at Police Station Telibandha Raipur, Crime No.242/2025 registered at Police Station Devendra Nagar Raipur, Crime No.05/2026 registered at Police Station Devendra Nagar Raipur, Crime No.699/2025 registered at Police Station Telibandha Raipur, Crime No.243/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Raipur for the offences punishable under Sections 299, 302, 353(1)(c), 353(2), 196(1) BNS, are hereby rejected at this stage.

¶119

10. However, taking into consideration the period of detention undergone by the applicant, the fact that the charge-sheets have already been filed in all the cases, to monitor the conduct of the applicant and to assess the applicant’s assistance in conclusion of the pending trials, this Court deems it appropriate to grant limited relief by way of temporary bail/parole.

¶120

11. Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant shall be released on temporary bail/parole for a period of three (03) months from the date of

¶121

13

¶122

his release on an undertaking that he shall surrender before the concerned trial Court on the date to be given by the trial Court on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court concerned with the following conditions:

¶123

(i) 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 temporary bail/parole and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶124

(ii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of temporary bail/parole 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.

¶125

(iii) 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.

¶126

(iv) The applicant shall not enter the territorial area of District Raipur during the period of three months except on the dates on which he is called by the learned trial Court.

¶127

(v) The applicant shall cooperate during the trials, and during the period of his short term bail/parole, he shall not indulge in any activity of tampering of evidence or involve in any criminal activities.

¶128

12. It is made clear that if the applicant is found to have committed breach

¶129

14

¶130

of any of the above conditions, then it shall be open for the State to move an application for cancellation of the temporary bail/parole granted to him by this Court.

¶131

13. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶132

Sd/(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

¶133

Arpan

Amit Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases