Ramkumar Arvind Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:23558

¶3

SOURABH BHILWAR

¶4

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.06.04 15:01:39 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

MCRC No. 5056 of 2026

¶8

Ramkumar Arvind S/o Anand Singh Binjhwar Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Kanchanpur -(Wrongly Mentioned As Kanchapur In The Order Sheet), Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur C.G.

¶9

... Applicant

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Forest Rang Officer, Forest Range Belgahana, District Bilaspur C.G.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Applicant : Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board

¶15

04.06.2026

¶16

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Forest Crime No. 11386/2025, registered at Police Station Forest

¶17

2

¶18

Range, Belgahana, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 2(16), 9, 39(1)(2)(3), 50 & 51 of the Wild Life protection Act, 1972.

¶19

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.03.2026, the investigating officer received secret information that after hunting a wild boar, its meat had been cut into pieces, cooked and consumed in the house of accused Govind Prasad. Acting upon the said information, a team of the Forest Department, Tenganmada, conducted a raid at the spot and allegedly recovered certain articles, which were seized. During investigation, memorandum statements of the accused persons, namely Govind Prasad, Nitin Sonwani and Rooplal Sonwani, were recorded and certain other articles were also seized at their instance. Thereafter, the accused persons were arrested, statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded and, upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.

¶20

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the prosecution has implicated the applicant solely on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused, namely Rooplal Sonwani, from whom the wild boar meat has been seized. He further submits that nothing has been seized from the possession of the present applicant and that it is only on

¶21

3

¶22

the basis of the statement of the co-accused alleging that the applicant had also purchased the meat of wild boar from him. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 01.04.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Learned counsel also submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and, therefore, prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶23

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that, as per the statement of the coaccused, the applicant had purchased the meat of wild boar from him. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶24

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶25

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the coaccused alleging that the applicant had purchased meat of wild boar from him, whereas nothing has been seized from the possession of the applicant; and further considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, that the charge-sheet

¶26

4

¶27

has already been filed before the competent Court; he is in jail since 01.04.2026; and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.

¶28

7. Let the applicant – Ramkumar Arvind , involved in Forest Crime No. 11386/2025, registered at Police Station Forest Range, Belgahana, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 2(16), 9, 39(1)(2)(3), 50 & 51 of the Wild Life protection Act, 1972, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with

¶29

two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶30

(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 bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶31

(ii) 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. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail

¶32

5

¶33

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.

¶34

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶35

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

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶38

$. Bhilwar

Ramkumar Arvind v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkumar Arvind 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

Rajkumar Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramshila Mahadeva Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravishankar Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudhir Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Loknath Dahriya Vs Smt. Priti Dahriya

Anish Kumar Pondi Vs State of Chhattisgarh