1 2025:CGHC:48947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7698 of 2025 1. Lucky Urf Lallan Sarthi S/o Late Vikrant Sarthi Aged About 26 Years R/o Sarthi Mohalla Durg, Mathpara, Near Chandi Mandir, Police Station- City Kotwali Durg, District Durg C.G 2. Pravesh Sarthi Urf Pappi S/o Late Vikrant Sarthi Aged About 26 Years R/o Sarthi Mohalla Durg, Mathpara, Near Chandi Mandir, Police Station- City Kotwali Durg, District Durg, C.G ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, Police Station- City Kotwali Durg, District Durg C.G ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.09 .202 5 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 174/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 109(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya 2 Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act. (Correspondence Sections 294, 506, 323, 307 and 34 of IPC). 2. According to the prosecution's story, on 22.04.2025, the complainant's son, Tejas Sarathi (the victim), went for a walk near the Daau Chicken shop in the locality around 11 pm after dinner. A sudden quarrel erupted between Tejas Sarathi and Pravesh Sarathi, Lucky Sarathi, and Shubh Sarathi, who allegedly had an old grudge against him. The accused started abusing and threatening to kill Tejas Sarathi, and a physical altercation ensued. During the fight, Pravesh Sarathi allegedly attacked Tejas Sarathi's neck with a sharp weapon, such as a knife, with the intention of killing him. When Tejas Sarathi tried to escape, the knife hit his left hand, causing injuries. Based on the complainant's report, the police registered the crime against the applicant and co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicants are real brothers, and it is alleged that injuries were caused to the injured by applicant No.2, namely Pravesh Sarthi, using a knife. However, the injuries were sustained on non-vital parts of the body and have been found to be simple in nature. Learned counsel also submits that applicant No.1 has five previous criminal antecedents, out of which he has been acquitted in one case and other cases are pending and applicant No.2 has no previous criminal antecedents. The details of the same have been explained in paragraph No. 4.A of the bail application. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the 3 applicants have been in custody since 24.04.2025. Considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. She further submits that applicant No.1 has five previous criminal antecedents, and applicant No.2 has two prior juvenile delinquency records. Hence, they are not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants, and the fact that the applicants are real brothers, and it is alleged that injuries were caused to the injured by applicant No.2, namely, Pravesh Sarthi, using a knife, however, the injuries were sustained on non-vital parts of the body and have been found to be simple in nature, further applicant No.1 has five previous criminal antecedents, out of which he has been acquitted in one case and other cases are pending and applicant No.2 has two prior juvenile delinquency records, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicants have been in custody since 24.04.2025, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant Nos. 1 and 2 - Lucky Urf Lallan Sarthi and Pravesh Sarthi Urf Pappi, 4 respectively involved in Crime No. 174/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 109(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act. (Correspondence Sections 294, 506, 323, 307 and 34 of IPC), be released on bail on his 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 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 fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial 5 court shall initiate proceedings against him, 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. 8. 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 Preeti