1 2025:CGHC:57814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9617 of 2025 Prahlad Sahu S/o Late Lakhan Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Laxman Nagar, Gali No. 05, Near Gulmohar Park, P.S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House O1cer, Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. This is the 9rst bail application 9led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 360/2025 registered at Police Station- Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the o?ence punishable under Sections 109(1), 296, 351(2), and 3/5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at the concerned police station alleging, inter alia, that on the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 date of the incident a minor dispute arose between the applicant and the complainant due to previous enmity, and thereafter the applicant assaulted the complainant with a knife, resulting in a simple injury. On the basis of this complaint, the concerned police registered an o?ence against the applicant under Sections 109(1), 296, 351(2), and 3/5 of the B.N.S., 2023, as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any o?ence and has been falsely implicated in the o?ence in question. He further submits that the applicant and the co-accused person were involved in the present case, and admittedly, as per the prosecution's case, it was the co-accused who assaulted the injured with sharp-edged weapon, the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature, while the applicant is alleged to have accompanied the co-accused. it is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 06.08.2025, charge- sheet has already been 9led, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been 9led in the present case. He further submits that the accused person along with other co-accused have assaulted the victim with sharp-edged weapon and the injuries sustained by the injured are dangerous to life, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of o?ence, period of detention of the applicant since 06.08.2025, the fact that though the applicant and the co- accused person were involved in the present case, and admittedly, as per the prosecution's case, it was the co-accused who assaulted the injured with sharp-edged weapon, the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature, while the applicant is alleged to have accompanied the co-accused, but the said act was attributed to co- accused person, further the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused, who committed the said act, the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been 9led in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let the Applicant – Prahlad Sahu, involved in Crime No. 360/2025 registered at Police Station- Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the o?ence punishable under Sections 109(1), 296, 351(2), and 3/5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 9le an undertaking to the e?ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 9xed 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 4 bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date 9xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su1cient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date 9xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 9xed 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 su1cient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. O1ce is directed to provide a certi9ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan