1 2025:CGHC:56772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9430 of 2025 Sushil Mahanand S/o Devar Chand Mahanand, Aged About 19 Years R/o Jagriti Nagar, Jai Shriram Nagar, R.B.H.Colony, P.S. Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O1cer, Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.11.2025 1. This is the 6rst bail application 6led 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. 772/2025 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur District Raipur, (C.G.) for the o?ence punishable under Sections 296, 126(2), 351(3), 118(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a written complaint at the concerned police station stating that, on the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 date of the incident, a dispute arose between the parties due to previous enmity, and thereafter the accused persons assaulted the injured persons. Based on the said complaint, the police registered o?ences punishable under Sections 296, 126(2), 351(3), 118(1), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against the present applicant and the other accused persons. Hence this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any o?ence and he has been falsely implicated in o?ence in question. He further submits that the applicant assaulted the injured, who has sustained injuries, which is non vital part of the body and the injured have received injuries which are simple in nature not in a grievous injuries. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Raj Nayak has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025 in MCRC No. 9375/2025. He further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 24.07.2025, charge-sheet has been 6led and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 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 6led in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the present applicant, along with other co-accused persons, assaulted the complainant, and he has one previous criminal antecedent which is pending, 3 therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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 24.07.2025, the fact that the applicant assaulted the injured, who has sustained injuries, which is non vital part of the body and the injured have received injuries which are simple in nature not in a grievous injuries, further similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Raj Nayak has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025 in MCRC No. 9375/2025, further the applicant has 01 criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been 6led in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant- Sushil Mahanand, involved in Crime No. 772/2025 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur District Raipur, (C.G.) for the o?ence punishable under Sections 296, 126(2), 351(3), 118(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 6le an undertaking to the e?ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 6xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be 4 open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date 6xed, 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 6xed 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 6xed 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 certi6ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan