Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18649 (CHH)

DHANRAJ GAHARWAL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/3234/2025 · 2025-04-28

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:19078 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3234 of 2025 Dhanraj Gaharwal S/o Gopal Gaharwal Aged About 19 Years R/o- Indratma Nagar, Siddhi Vinayak Chowk, Ward No. 49, Ex-Parshad Gali, Beside Dr. Dinesh Clinic, Puraina, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O., Police Station- New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.04.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 427/2024, registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that complainant Ajay Dhruv reported to the Police Station that on December 22, 2024, at around 5:15 A.M., his mother was cleaning the road in front of their house with water. The applicant/accused, a neighbor, allegedly approached her, objected to the road being wet, and used abusive language. When the mother resisted, the applicant/accused allegedly assaulted her with a knife and fled the scene. Based on this report, an FIR was lodged against the applicant under aforesaid sections and subsequently, he was arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submit that the applicant has never committed the act as alleged by the prosecution, the actual fact of the case is that, on the date of incident son of victim had some altercation with applicant and complainant himself tried to assault to applicant, in the meantime mother of complainant same there and in self defence some injuries caused to the injured. He also submits that the applicant has no intention to cause injury to injured as the incident took place on the heat of moment. The applicant is in jail since 23.12.2024 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail 3 application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have caused injury to the mother of complainant with a knife, when she resisted, due to which, she sustained injuries on her abdomen, which are grievous in nature, therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that the applicant is alleged to have caused injury to the mother of complainant with a knife, due to which, she sustained injuries on her abdomen, which are grievous in nature and as per the opinion of doctor, the same is found to be life threatening, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Dhanraj Gaharwal, involved in Crime No. 427/2024, registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to 4 proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil