1 2025:CGHC:44312 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6855 of 2025 Santosh Tandi S/o Late Goverdhan Tandi Aged About 47 Years R/o Near Shiv Temple, Kalibadi, P.S. City Kotwali, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2025 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. 80/2025 registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 333, 118(1), and 118(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant, Pande Jagat, lodged a report alleging that on 11.05.2025 at about 11:30 a.m., while he was watching television along with his daughter in the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 presence of Sanju Rawat and Sunil Bagh, the accused/applicant came in front of his house and started abusing them in filthy language. When the complainant tried to stop him, the accused, in a fit of anger, entered the complainant’s house and assaulted him with hands and fists and further attacked him with a cutter used for cutting banners and posters, and also assaulted his daughter. On the basis of the said report, an FIR was registered against the applicant for the offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 333, 118(1), and 118(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, and after due investigation, the applicant/accused was arrested on 12.05.2025 and has been in custody since then. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is urged that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged; rather, on the date of the incident, it was the complainant along with his friends, namely Sanju Rawat and Sunil Bagh, who first assaulted the applicant, and in the course of the scuffle the applicant, in exercise of his right of self-defence, caused some injuries to the complainant. It is further submitted that when the daughter of the complainant also intervened in the brawl, she too sustained some injuries, which were purely accidental and unintentional. The entire incident occurred suddenly without any premeditation, and the complainant and his friends were in fact the aggressors. He further submits that the applicant is aged about 47 years, and being the sole earning member of his family, his prolonged incarceration is causing severe financial hardship to his 3 dependents. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, he is in jail since 12.05.2025 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 has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there are serious and specific allegations against the applicant. It is contended that on 11.05.2025 at about 11:30 a.m., while the complainant was watching television along with his daughter in the presence of Sanju Rawat and Sunil Bagh, the applicant came in front of the complainant’s house and started hurling filthy abuses. When the complainant tried to intervene, the applicant, in a fit of rage, forcibly entered the complainant’s house and assaulted him with fists and blows, and thereafter attacked him with a sharp-edged cutter used for cutting banners and posters. It is further submitted that the applicant not only assaulted the complainant but also caused grievous injuries to his daughter, who is a married lady, and that the injury sustained by her is a muscle-deep incised wound on the face, which is a serious and disfiguring injury. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the specific allegations that the applicant forcibly entered the complainant’s house, assaulted the complainant and his daughter, and inflicted a grievous muscle-deep incised wound on the face of 4 the daughter with a sharp-edged cutter, this Court is of the opinion that the nature and gravity of the offence is serious. The material on record prima facie shows active involvement of the applicant in causing injuries to both the victims, including a married woman, within the safety of her own home. The act attributed to the applicant is not only violent but also of such a nature that it may have lasting consequences upon the victim. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, and the manner in which the incident has been committed, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail, accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Santosh Tandi, involved in Crime No. 80/2025 registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 333, 118(1), and 118(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. 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 Rahul dewangan