Dismissed¶27

Ravi Tondey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Bail – Third application

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2026MCRC/4606/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MCRC No. 4606 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 15/06/2026 by Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Third bail application of Ravi Tondey (custody since 28.05.2024, Crime No. 319/2024, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur; Sections 294, 506, 323, 34, 302 IPC and Sections 25, 27 Arms Act) rejected. Earlier applications dismissed 02.04.2025 (M.Cr.C. No. 2080/2025) and 09.10.2025 (M.Cr.C. No. 7959/2025). Medical report dated 27.05.2026 (D.K. Super Specialty Hospital, Raipur) recorded improved, satisfactory condition; 13 of 20 prosecution witnesses examined. Bail denied; Trial Court directed to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; no release ordered. Trial Court directed to expedite the trial and conclude it as expeditiously as possible. ¶27

Ravi Tondey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail refused; no release ordered. Trial Court directed to expedite the trial and conclude it as expeditiously as possible.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, in judicial custody since 28.05.2024 in Crime No. 319/2024 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 and 302 IPC along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, deserved to be enlarged on bail in his third bail application on grounds of prolonged incarceration and medical condition, notwithstanding rejection of his two earlier applications.

¶19

Court's answer

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the evidence collected during investigation, the fact that the previous bail applications were dismissed on merits, the progress of the trial (13 out of 20 prosecution witnesses examined), and the medical report dated 27.05.2026 issued by the Medical Officer, D.K. Super Specialty Hospital, Raipur, recording that the applicant's condition had improved and was satisfactory, the Court found no justification to enlarge the applicant on bail at that stage.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant and the advanced stage of the proceedings, the learned Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - Third application - Rejected. Applicant in judicial custody since 28.05.2024 in connection with Crime No. 319/2024, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. First bail application dismissed on merits on 02.04.2025 (M.Cr.C. No. 2080/2025); second dismissed on 09.10.2025 (M.Cr.C. No. 7959/2025) as trial had substantially progressed with 13 of 20 prosecution witnesses examined. On Court's direction, State produced medical report: applicant examined by Department of Neurosurgery, D.K. Super Specialty Hospital, Raipur on 15.05.2026; report dated 27.05.2026 recorded condition improved and satisfactory. Considering gravity of allegations, investigation evidence, prior dismissals on merits, stage of trial and improved medical condition, Court found no justification to enlarge applicant on bail; third bail application rejected. However, considering period of incarceration and advanced stage of proceedings, Trial Court directed to expedite trial and conclude it as expeditiously as possible.

2026:CGHC:23909

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 4606 of 2026

¶6

1 - Ravi Tondey S/o Sushil Tondey Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dunda Police Station, Mujgahan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

...Applicant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Applicant(s)	: Mr. AjayKumrani, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Ms. Supriya Upasne,Dy.GA

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

15/06/2026

¶15

This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The applicant's first bail application had been dismissed on merits by the Court vide order dated 02.04.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.

¶16

¶17

2080/2025. Thereafter, the applicant has filed the second bail application which was also dismissed on 09.10.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 7959/2025 on the ground that the trial had substantially progressed and 13 out of 20 prosecution witnesses had already been examined, Consequently, the present third bail application came to be considered.

¶18

The applicant has remained in judicial custody since 28.05.2024 in connection with Crime No. 319/2024, registered at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant had sustained injuries during the same incident and that, while in custody, his physical condition had progressively deteriorated. It was further contended that the applicant had repeatedly required hospitalisation and considering his prolonged incarceration since 28.05.2024 and his medical condition, he deserved to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

On the last date of hearing, this Court had directed the State counsel to place on record a detailed medical report concerning the applicant's medical status, physical condition, and the necessity of any further treatment.

¶21

In compliance with the said direction, the State has submitted the report of the Medical Officer, Raipur. The report discloses that the applicant had been examined by the Department of Neurosurgery at

¶22

¶23

D.K. Super Specialty Hospital, Raipur, on 15.05.2026. Upon evaluation by specialist doctors, appropriate treatment had been administered and the applicant had been advised to undergo a follow-up examination after two months. The report further indicated that the applicant's condition had improved considerably and was presently satisfactory.

¶24

Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the earlier two bail applications of the applicant had already been rejected on merits. It was also argued that the trial was nearing completion and that the applicant is receiving regular medical treatment through the jail authorities at D.K. Super Specialty Hospital. In view of the improvement in his medical condition, it was contended that no exceptional circumstance existed warranting his release on bail.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the bail application.

¶26

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the evidence collected during investigation, and the fact that the previous bail applications of the applicant have already been dismissed on merits and further the fact that the trial was in progress, 13 out of 20 prosecution witnesses had already been examined and taking into account the medical report dated 27.05.2026 issued by the Medical Officer, D.K. Super Specialty Hospital, Raipur, which recorded that the applicant's condition had improved and was satisfactory, the Court found no justification to enlarge the applicant on bail at that stage.

¶27

Accordingly, the third bail application was rejected. However,

¶28

¶29

considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant and the advanced stage of the proceedings, the learned Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶30

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶31

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date:2026.06.18 12:52:24 +0530

Ravi Tondey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Tondey 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

Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Amarnath

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Savitri Bai Sahu

Harish Kumar Vs Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (Cgvyapam)

Amir Mohommad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Cipla Limited Vs Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited