1 2025:CGHC:45088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5095 of 2025 Sumit Patel S/o Premlal Patel Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Ramayan Chowk Barela Police Station Jarhagaon Disrict - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jarhagaon District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Indrapreet Kaur Chhabra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.09.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 33/2025 registered at Police Station Jarhagaon District - Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2) and 118(2), of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.03.2025 at around 10:00 p.m., the injured person had gone for a walk towards Ramayan Chowk. About a year prior to the incident, there had been RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 a dispute between the injured and the applicant after the applicant allegedly hit the injured person’s goat with a stick. On the night of the incident, the applicant, still harboring animosity, confronted the injured person, abused him, threatened to kill him with a butcher knife, and assaulted him, causing a blow to his left cheek near the eye. As a result, the injured started bleeding profusely, ran from the spot, and collapsed near Ramayan Chowk. Upon receiving information about the incident, the injured person’s father, Rakesh Patel, arrived at the scene and immediately took him to the Government Hospital, Takhatpur, in a 108 emergency vehicle for treatment. Considering the seriousness of the injuries, the doctor referred him to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, where he was admitted and treated. The injured remained hospitalized until 15.03.2025, when he was discharged. Subsequently, on 22.03.2025, the injured lodged a formal report at Police Station Jarhagaon. Acting upon the complaint, the police arrested the applicant on 26.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. She further submits that there are several contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution case which clearly indicate that the allegations are false and fabricated. It is submitted that as per the FIR, the alleged incident occurred on 01.03.2025, yet the FIR was lodged belatedly on 22.03.2025, showing an unexplained delay of 22 days. Furthermore, while the FIR states that the injured person was taken to Takhatpur Hospital on the date of the incident, the hospital 3 records show that he was admitted only on 03.03.2025 at 12:05 p.m., indicating that no treatment was given on 01.03.2025. The injured was later referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, at 1:42 a.m. on 03.03.2025 and discharged on 15.03.2025, yet the FIR was filed only after 8 days of discharge, which further raises doubt on the prosecution story. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions regarding the date of the incident, as the CIMS medical records mention the date of occurrence as 02.03.2025, contrary to the FIR’s version of 01.03.2025. Moreover, there is no medical or documentary evidence to show that the injured was admitted to any hospital on 01.03.2025, which strongly suggests that no such incident took place on that date. She further points out that when the father of the injured was questioned by the doctor at CIMS Hospital, he gave a completely different version, stating that his son was assaulted by the brother of a girl with whom he was in a relationship and that he was attacked with a sword. This statement contradicts the FIR, where it is alleged that the applicant attacked the injured with a butcher knife. These glaring inconsistencies and contradictions, it is argued, clearly demonstrate that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She also submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.05.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the 4 applicant are serious in nature. It is stated that there was a previous enmity between the applicant and the injured person due to a dispute that occurred a year ago when the applicant had assaulted the injured person’s goat with a stick. Owing to this past grudge, on the night of 01.03.2025 at around 10:00 p.m., the applicant not only abused and threatened the injured with dire consequences but also attacked him with a butcher knife, causing a grievous injury near his left eye and cheek, which resulted in heavy bleeding. It is further submitted that due to the severity of the injuries, the victim had to be immediately taken to Government Hospital, Takhatpur, and later referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, where he remained admitted for several days and underwent treatment, only to be discharged on 15.03.2025. This clearly shows the seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant. He further contended that the delay in lodging the FIR on 22.03.2025 is well explained as the priority of the family was to save the life of the injured person. Hence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, though the fact that the applicant assaulted the injured with a stick and a butcher knife, causing a injury near his left eye and cheek, which resulted in heavy bleeding, but the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.05.2025 and the injured person was received injuries which not dangerous to life and further the applicant has no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has 5 been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let the Applicant- Sumit Patel, involved in Crime No. 33/2025 registered at Police Station Jarhagaon District - Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2) and 118(2), of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (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. (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 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 6 court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (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. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan