1 2025:CGHC:57815 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9600 of 2025 1 - Kanhaiya Baghel S/o Late Chaitram Baghel Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Tikait ( Pendri), P.S. Sargaon, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ramvilas Baghel S/o Late Chaitram Baghel Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Tikait ( Pendri), P.S. Sargaon, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jeevan Satnami S/o Kanhaiya Baghel Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Tikait ( Pendri), P.S. Sargaon, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Vijay Baghel S/o Ramvilas Baghel Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tikait ( Pendri), P.S. Sargaon, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sargaon, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 92/2025, registered at Police Station : Sargaon, District - Mungeli, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 296, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 115(2), 351(2), 324(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 117(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Jitendra Gayakwad’s aunt (Bua), Kusum Baghel, a widow residing with the complainant’s mother in village Mohdi, was being persuaded by applicant No. 1, Kanhaiya Baghel, who is a relative, to enter into a second marriage. On 17.07.2025, while Kusum was at her workplace (the plant), applicant No. 1 allegedly came to her house with a boy for the purpose of arranging the marriage, which the complainant’s family refused. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 took the boy to the plant where Kusum was working, following which the complainant’s family confronted him and, as alleged, he and his family members abused them. On 19.07.2025, at about 3–4 p.m., accused persons Kishan, Mahendra, Ajay Baghel and others arrived at the complainant’s house, hurling abuses. Kishan was allegedly carrying a stick, Ajay a rod, and the others clubs (dandas), and when questioned by the complainant’s family, they all assaulted the complainant and his relatives, entered a general store, and also damaged a scooty. The complainant sustained injuries on his head, shoulder and left palm, his mother su<ered Anger injuries, Karan sustained injuries on his head and hand; Bhagwali su<ered head, ear and leg injuries, Sunita received an injury on her hand, and Bharat received an injury on his shoulder. A report was lodged the same day, the accused were arrested, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was Aled. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that, at the request of the complainant’s family, applicant No. 1 had only been searching for a suitable boy for the remarriage of the complainant’s aunt (Bua), and on the date of the incident, when he visited the complainant’s house with a prospective boy, a sudden dispute arose and the complainant’s family allegedly assaulted the applicants. It is submitted that the applicants had tried to pacify the situation, but an altercation ensued during which the complainant side received injuries. Though Jamuna sustained an injury resulting in amputation of a Anger and Bhagwali received an injury on the ear, it is submitted that these injuries, along with the injuries of other persons, are simple in nature and not dangerous to life. He further submits that since the parties are close relatives, they have amicably resolved the dispute, and a no-objection application has been Aled by the complainant, annexed as Annexure A-3. He also submits that the present applicants are in jail since 10.09.2025 and 22.07.2025, the charge-sheet has been Aled and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 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. She further submits that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicants, who, in a pre-planned manner, formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant and his family members 4 with dangerous weapons such as a stick, rod and clubs. It is submitted that the medical report shows Ave injuries on the complainant and other victims, including a fracture on the Anger, which indicates the severity of the assault. The accused persons also allegedly entered the general store and damaged the scooty, thereby committing further o<ences of mischief and house trespass. Therefore, the present applicants are not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the applicants assaulted the complainant and his family members with a stick, rod and clubs, but the injuries received by the injured person are found to be simple in nature and no previous criminal cases registered against the applicants and the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the applicants are in jail since 10.09.2025 and 22.07.2025, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Kanhaiya Baghel, Ramvilas Baghel, Jeevan Satnami and Vijay Baghel involved in Crime No. 92/2025, registered at Police Station : Sargaon, District - Mungeli, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 324(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 117(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond 5 with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall Ale an undertaking to the e<ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates Axed 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 Axed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without suEcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date Axed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, 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 Axed 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 applicants are 6 deliberate or without suEcient 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. OEce is directed to send a certiAed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan