1 2025:CGHC:45661 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7120 of 2025 1 - Ailes Yadav @ Bhukharu S/o Shri Ram Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Behind Sita Rice Mill, Milpara, P.S. City Kotwali Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Varun Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Kamleshwar Vishwakarma Aged About 22 Years R/o Behind Sita Rice Mill, Milpara, P.S. City Kotwali Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Police Station Durg Kotwali, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.09.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 285/2025, registered at Police Station : Durg Kotwali, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 351(3), 115(2), 109, 3(5) of B.N.S. and 25, 27 of Arms Act. (As per charge-sheet). 2. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that in the earlier rejection order, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were not mentioned. However, in the corrected copy filed today through a covering memo by learned counsel for the applicants, the said sections have been incorporated. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.06.2025, around 10:20 a.m., near the house of complainant Rupesh Singh Rajput, an altercation arose over a prior dispute allegedly linked to one Manish Kshatriya, during which Omkar Dhanakar @ Yadav and Varun, along with Ailes Yadav, abused the complainant with filthy language and assaulted him with fists and kicks, causing injuries to his left hand and right leg. The complainant further alleges that Omkar, taking a knife stabbed him in the abdomen with an intention to kill, while other co- accused, including Ailes Yadav, continued assault by hands, following which the injured was admitted to District Hospital, Durg. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered and the applicant as arrested. After the arrest of the applicant, case was investigated and charge-sheet was filed for offence u/s 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, were added. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no seizure has been effected from the possession of the applicants. As per the prosecution case itself, the co-accused, 3 who is a juvenile, is alleged to have assaulted the injured with a knife, whereas the present applicants are only alleged to have assaulted the injured with hands and fists. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. The charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicants be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is contended that although no seizure has been made from the possession of the applicants and as per the prosecution case, the co-accused, who is a juvenile, assaulted the injured with a knife, causing grievous injuries, while the present applicants are alleged to have assaulted the injured with hands and fists. It is further submitted that the involvement of the applicants appears to be prima facie established, and therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court moreover, no seizure has been effected from the possession of the applicants and as per the prosecution case itself, the co-accused, who is a juvenile, is alleged to have assaulted the injured with a knife, whereas the present applicants 4 are only alleged to have assaulted the injured with hands and fists and further the applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 16.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 8. 8. Let applicants, Ailes Yadav @ Bhukharu and Varun Kumar Vishwakarma, involved in Crime No. 285/2025, registered at Police Station : Durg Kotwali, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 109, 3(5) of B.N.S. and 25, 27 of Arms Act, be released on bail on furnishing 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 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 5 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 applicants are deliberated 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 certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal