1 2025:CGHC:57487 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9606 of 2025 Yogesh Yadav @ Lucky S/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Bhanpuri, Shiv Vidya Near Bandhwa Pond, Police Station Khamtarai, District-Raipur-Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House O4cer, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.11.2025 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. 456/2024 registered at Police Station- Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 109, 309(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant, Neeraj Rajput, lodged a report at Police Station Amanaka alleging that on RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 30.12.2024 at about 10:30 PM, some unknown persons stabbed the injured, Dhiraj Rajput, near Kaka Dhaba, Ring Road No. 2, Raipur, and also looted his mobile phone. On the basis of this report, an o=ence was registered against unknown persons, and during the course of investigation, the present applicant was arrested on 31.12.2024. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, as no stab injury was inAicted by him upon the injured Dhiraj Rajput. It is contended that no weapon or knife has been recovered from the applicant, his name does not appear in the FIR, and as per the allegations, it was co-accused K. Jaswant Sai who allegedly stabbed the injured. It is further submitted that no test identiDcation parade has been conducted by the prosecution, thereby rendering the allegations against the applicant doubtful. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 31.12.2024 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, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He also submits that the injured sustained six injuries, Dve of which are stab wounds and one an incised wound, with protrusion of the intestines, clearly indicating a serious assault. It is contended that the applicant, along with one of the co-accused, restrained the injured 3 while the third accused, K. Jaswant Sai, inAicted the stab injuries. The State submits that the applicant actively participated in the commission of the crime by facilitating and assisting the principal accused in causing grievous harm to the injured, and therefore, the applicant cannot be absolved of criminal liability. Hence, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the material collected during investigation, and the nature of allegations against the present applicant, this Court Dnds that the applicant along with one of the co-accused caught hold of the injured while the third accused, K. Jaswant Sai, inAicted six serious injuries on the injured, including Dve stab wounds and one incised wound with protrusion of intestines. In view of the gravity of the o=ence, the severity of injuries, and the speciDc overt act assigned to the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a Dt case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail, accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Yogesh Yadav @ Lucky, involved in Crime No. 456/2024 registered at Police Station- Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 109, 309(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 4 8. O4ce is directed to send a certiDed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan