Dismissed

Sumit Kewat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2026MCRC/8405/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order is on a first bail application preferred by Sumit Kewat for regular bail. The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the application, holding that despite the applicant not being named in the original FIR, involvement in an unlawful assembly causing serious injuries to the complainant precludes the extent of bail at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The bail application of the applicant is rejected.

Sumit Kewat Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.18 14:37:31 +0530

CGHC010317982026

2026:CGHC:40784

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 8405 of 2026

¶8

Sumit Kewat Son Of Shri Lakhan Kewat Aged About 19 Years Prabhat Chowk, Chingrajpara, Police Station - Sarkanada, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Applicant

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station In Charge, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

	... Non-applicant
For Applicant :	Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate
For Non-applicant :	Ms. Monika Thakur, P.L.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

18.09.2026

¶16

1) The applicant has preferred 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.570/2026, registered by Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 109, 192(2), 193(3), 351(3) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

¶17

¶18

2) The prosecution story in brief, is that on the midnight of 25.04.2026, Vicky Ahirwar along with his associates abused and assaulted the complainant and his family members on account of animosity. On the basis of complaint, FIR was lodged and name of the present applicant surfaced in the memorandum statements of other accused persons, therefore he was arrested.

¶19

3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case as he did not participate in the commission of the afore-stated offence. He further submits that applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of memorandum statements of other accused persons whereas the main accused Vicky Ahirwar is still absconding. He also submits applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has been filed and he is in jail since 25.04.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

¶20

4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that though the present applicant is not named in the FIR but he has been implicated on the basis of memorandum statements of the other accused persons She further submits that one of the injured persons, namely, Bedu Vishwakarma suffered hemorrhagic as well as non-hemorrhagic contusions with perilesional edema and fracture of posterolateral wall of left orbit. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

6) It is contended by Mr. Singh that name of the present applicant was not present in the FIR and his name was implicated solely on basis of memorandum statements of other accused persons but sight cannot be lost to the fact that the applicant was a member of an unlawful assembly which assaulted the complainant and his family members. The medical reports of the injured persons is also present on record which reflect that Rekha Sharti, Soni Singh Thakur and Tilak Das suffered simple injuries whereas Sanat Sharti was recommended for ortho surgery opinion and Bedu Vishwakarma suffered serious injuries like hemorrhagic as well as non-hemorrhagic contusions with perilesional edema and fracture of posterolateral wall of left orbit.

¶24

7) Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant is rejected .

¶25

8) Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶26

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶27

A j i n k y a

Sumit Kewat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kewat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases