1 2025:CGHC:19070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3251 of 2025 Lucky Nirmalkar S/o Yashwant Aged About 19 Years R/o Near Ram Marriage Palace Urla Durg P.S. Mohan Nagar Durg District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO Police Station Mohan Nagar District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.04.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 461/2024 registered at Police Station – Mohan Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution's story, in brief, it is that the complainant lodged a report stating that on 18.09.2024, at around 11:30 a.m., he had gone out for a walk after eating in his locality. At the same time, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.04.29 11:29:33 +0530 2 Harsh Yadav @ Bhajji and Himanshu Nishad from his locality walked ahead of him towards their house, so he stopped near his house. After some time, there was a commotion in the locality that an unknown person had attacked Harsh and Himanshu with a sharp object near Shri Ram Temple in Bajrang Para, Urla, Durg. Then, he went to Shri Ram Temple and saw that Harsh was lying unconscious in the street in front of the temple, and Himanshu was lying unconscious in the shed of Jai Bhole Traders. Harsh had injuries on both thighs and back, while Himanshu had injuries on the left side of his chest. The matter was narrated to the police station, and the police registered the offense and arrested the applicant 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that no any weapon is recovered from the possession of the present applicant. He further submits that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature. He further submits that the other co-accused person, namely, Pushpendra Sahu in MCRC No. 2311 of 2025 vide order dated 24.03.2025 has already been granted regular bail by this Court, therefore, he prays that the applicant is also entitled for grant regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant, along with the other co-accused person, assaulted the injured persons with a knife, due to which they received grievous stab injuries, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 3 the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, and further considering the fact that the applicant, along with the other co-accused person, assaulted the injured persons with a knife, due to which they received grievous stab injuries, further, the other co-accused, namely Pushpendra Sahu, in MCRC No. 2311 of 2025, was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2025, however, the case of Pushpendra Sahu is distinguishable, as he allegedly assaulted the victims with his hands and fists, resulting in simple injuries, whereas the present applicant's case involves more severe allegations, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the first bail application of the applicant – Lucky Nirmalkar, involved in Crime No. 461/2024 registered at Police Station – Mohan Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek