1 2025:CGHC:46485 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6474 of 2025 1 - Ramlakhan Yadav S/o Biharilal Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bhainso Ward No.6, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bharatlal S/o Biharilal Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Bhainso Ward No.6, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o Devgun Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Banahil, Police Station Mulmula, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir/station House Officer, Police Station Pamgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the default which has been pointed out by the Registry is removed. 2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 260/2025 registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 109(1), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 06.06.2025, when the complainant Shambhu Yadav’s sons, Bali Yadav and Nanhu Yadav, went to inspect their agricultural field situated at Bandhwakhar, the applicants/accused along with other co-accused persons abused them with filthy language referring to their mother and sister and, with the intention to kill them, accused Bharatlal Yadav assaulted with a tangi (axe), accused Ramlakhan with an iron rod, and accused Vinod along with co-accused Kiran Yadav assaulted with lathis, thereby causing injuries. Injured persons Nanhu Yadav and Bali Yadav were given first aid at the Primary Health Centre and thereafter referred for further treatment. In the medical examination report, the doctor has opined that the injuries were caused by tangi and iron rod. Based upon such, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the FIR itself shows that the agricultural land and crop in question were being cultivated by the applicants for the last several years, whereas the complainant party, having no share therein, went to forcibly harvest the crop and thus acted as aggressors, due to which a sudden quarrel took place. The injuries, if any, were sustained by the complainant side in the course of 3 applicants exercising their right of private defence of property and person, and even otherwise the medical record clearly shows that no grievous or life-threatening injury was caused and the victims were not admitted in hospital. It is further submitted that the applicants have not used any weapon of their own and the axe allegedly used was brought by the complainant side itself. Moreover, the co-accused Smt. Kiran Yadav, whose role is identical to that of the present applicants, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 5798/2025 vide order dated 24.07.2025, and therefore, on the ground of parity also the present applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail and in the present case, charge- sheet has already been filed, hence custodial interrogation is not required, and even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value, no prima facie offence under Section 109(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the present applicants. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicants are alleged to have assaulted the injured with an iron rod, as a result of which the injured sustained injuries. It is further submitted that the medical opinion regarding the exact nature of injuries, whether simple or grievous, has not yet been conclusively given, and therefore the benefit of doubt cannot be extended to the applicants at this stage. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the manner of assault, and the possibility of the applicants tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses if 4 released on bail, it is respectfully submitted that the applicants are not entitled to the concession of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court further, it appears that the injuries were found to be simple in nature and the applicants are in jail since 06.06.2025 and the co-accused namely Smt. Kiran Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.5798/2025, vide order dated 24.07.2025 on the ground that she is a thus, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicants -Ramlakhan Yadav, Bharatlal and Vinod Kumar Yadav, involved in Crime No. 260/2025 registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 109(1), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 5 accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 them in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal