1 2025:CGHC:52698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8547 of 2025 Aman Patel S/o Shri Dujram Patel Aged About 25 Years Caste Patel, R/o Village Arda, Police Station Banki Mongra, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.10.2025 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. 892/2025, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 109, 3(5) of BNS and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 27.06.2025, complainant 2 Vicky Gupta lodged a report at Police Station Sarkanda, stating that around 9:00 P.M.., while he was walking near his house in Bhukamp Atal Awas, Sarkanda, he heard loud screams coming from a nearby room in Block D. When he went there, he found blood spread all over the room, Urmila Shrivastava was lying injured in the kitchen, Sunita alias Sushma was locked inside the toilet, and Rani Shrivastava alias Pramila was lying in front of the door covered in blood. Urmila informed that Aman Patel, the accused, had attacked her with a sharp iron weapon (chopper) with intent to kill, and when Rani and Sunita tried to intervene, he also assaulted them, causing serious injuries. 3. During investigation, the accused Aman Patel was arrested, and based on his memorandum statement, a sharp iron weapon resembling a sword was seized from him. The dying declarations of the injured victims Amala, Urmila, and Sunita Shrivastava were recorded, in which Pramila and Sunita specifically stated that Aman Patel suddenly entered the room, took out a knife from his bag, and attacked them, which led to the registration of the alleged offence against the applicant. Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no direct allegation against the present applicant, and the accusations made are vague and unsupported by concrete evidence. Considering the material on record, no 3 prima facie case is made out against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedent, he is in custody since 28.06.2025, so far as co-accused person is concerned, co-accused, namely, Amit Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2025 in MCRC No.5967 of 2025, copy of which is annexed as Annexure A-4, further the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is the main accused who attacked Urmila Shrivastava with a sharp weapon with intent to kill, and also inflicted grievous injuries on Rani Shrivastava alias Pramila and Sunita alias Sushma when they tried to intervene. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the applicant, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From perusal of the record, it prima facie appears that the applicant Aman Patel is the principal accused in a brutal assault case that occurred on 27.06.2025 at Bhukamp Atal Awas, Block D, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur. On the said date and time, the complainant Vicky Gupta heard loud cries and screams coming 4 from a nearby residential block. Upon rushing to the spot, he discovered a horrific scene with blood splattered across the room, and the victims - Urmila Shrivastava, Rani Shrivastava alias Pramila, and Sunita alias Sushma, lying grievously injured. It is specifically alleged that the applicant Aman Patel, armed with a sharp iron weapon resembling a chopper, forcibly entered the room and launched a violent and unprovoked attack upon Urmila Shrivastava with the clear intention to kill her. When Rani Shrivastava and Sunita Shrivastava attempted to intervene and save Urmila, the applicant also assaulted them mercilessly, causing deep and dangerous injuries on vital parts of their bodies. The attack created a scene of panic and terror among the residents. During investigation, the police arrested Aman Patel, and on the basis of his memorandum statement, a sharp iron weapon resembling a chopper was recovered from his possession, which is alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime. 8. Further, the statements of the injured witnesses and their dying declarations recorded soon after the incident, which is now their statements under Section 180 of BNSS, as they are alive, clearly point towards that the present applicant has assaulted the three injured girls with knife, who sustained grievous injuries and the said injuries were found to be dangerous to their life. The recovery of the weapon at his instance further supports the prosecution case. It is also noted that the co-accused Amit Kumar, on whom 5 the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance for grant of bail on the ground of parity, was granted bail by this Court on the ground that he had no role in causing injuries to the victims, it was the present applicant who inflicted injuries upon the victims with the intention to kill them, hence, the case of present applicant is clearly distinguishable from the case of co-accused, as such, the benefit of parity cannot be extended to him, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant - Aman Patel, involved in Crime No. 892/2025, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 109, 3(5) of BNS and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, is rejected. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. 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 Akhil