1 2025:CGHC:55594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9193 of 2025 Purushottam Urf Shera Yadav S/o Gautariya Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Camp - 01, Behind Teen Darshan Temple, Police Station - Chhawani, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Sho, Police Station Chhawani, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Samdarsh Nirankari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate (for objector) Order on Board 14.11.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 436/2024 registered at Police Station- Chhawani, District- Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 109, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.14 16:01:39 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29.09.2024 at about 11:50 PM, one Atul Yadav came to the house of the complainant, Ashwin Vasnik, and his brother, Pratik Vasnik, and asked them to accompany him near Shiv Mandir. When they reached there, the main co-accused, Charnu Rao, questioned the complainant as to why he had not recharged the mobile phone of the present applicant, and upon the complainant responding in a rude tone, Charnu slapped him, whereafter co-accused Rakesh assaulted him with a steel pipe and Tusar hit him with a wooden stump on his body. When his brother, Pratik Vasnik, intervened, he was also assaulted by the present applicant and Charnu Rao, after which all the accused persons fled from the spot. Subsequently, an FIR bearing Crime No. 436/2024 was lodged at Police Station Chhawani, Durg, on 30.09.2024, and a charge-sheet bearing No. 491/2024 was filed on 26.11.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.09.2024 and till date, the trial has not concluded and is progressing only at a snail’s pace as out of 13 prosecution witnesses, till date, examination-in-chief of only one witness has been recorded. Further, two co-accused, namely, Tusar Nirmalkar and Rakesh Sahu have already been granted bail by this court in MCRC No. 1353/2025 and MCRC No. 1795/2025 respectively. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, he has 3 no previous criminal antecedent registered against him. Lastly, though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the bail plea of the applicant and submits that the material on record clearly establishes the active and direct involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the offence. It is submitted that the applicant, along with co-accused Charnu Rao, assaulted the injured with a knife, causing grievous stab wounds on the abdomen, as a result of which the victim’s intestines protruded and profuse bleeding occurred. The nature and location of the injuries clearly reflect the intention to cause death. Counsel further brings to the notice of this Court that the bail application of co- accused Charnu Rao, who played an identical role, has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2025 passed in MCRC No. 3733/2025, and the present applicant stands on no better footing. 5. With regard to the submission of the applicant concerning delay in trial, it is submitted that the trial is not progressing slowly due to any lapse on the part of the prosecution; rather, the delay is attributable to the conduct of the accused persons themselves. One of the co-accused, despite being granted bail, has absconded, compelling the issuance of a bailable warrant against him and thereby obstructing smooth progress of the trial. It is 4 further submitted that the present applicant himself has caused grievous knife injuries to the complainant, and given the seriousness of the assault, severity of the injuries, and the conduct of the accused persons, no ground exists for grant of bail. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant, along with co-accused Charnu Rao, inflicted grievous knife injuries on the victim, including a stab wound to the abdomen causing intestinal protrusion, clearly indicating intent to kill. It is pointed out that the bail plea of co- accused Charnu Rao has already been rejected by this Court on 28.08.2025 in MCRC No. 3733/2025, and the applicant stands on the same footing. It is further submitted that the alleged delay in trial is due to the conduct of the accused persons themselves, as one co-accused has absconded after being granted bail, causing disruption in proceedings. Considering the gravity of the offence and the applicant’s active role, no ground for bail is made out. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the rival submissions and upon perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that the allegations against the present applicant are grave and specific. The material on record prima facie indicates that the applicant, along with co-accused Charnu Rao, assaulted the injured with a knife, causing grievous abdominal injuries resulting in protrusion of intestines, clearly 5 reflecting an intention to cause death. The role attributed to the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Charnu Rao, whose bail has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2025 in MCRC No. 3733/2025. Further, the contention regarding delay in trial is not acceptable, as the delay is attributable to the conduct of the accused persons themselves, one of whom has absconded after being granted bail. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the nature of injuries, the applicant’s active role, and the likelihood of obstruction of trial if released, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – Purushottam Urf Shera Yadav involved in Crime No. 436/2024 registered at Police Station- Chhawani, District- Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 109, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, is rejected at this stage. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. 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 Manpreet