1 2025:CGHC:49783 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7882 of 2025 1 - Mahajan Kerketta S/o - Bechan Kerketta, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Sardih, P.S. - Bagicha, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Ramjane Baghel S/o - Sukhlal Baghel, Aged About 21 Years R/o - Village - Sardih, P.S. - Bagicha, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., P.S. - Bagicha, District - Jashpur, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.10.2025 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. 118/2025, registered at Police Station- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(2), 191(2), 192, 331(6) of B.N.S. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Manpyari KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Khalkho, lodged a written report alleging that on 21.05.2025 at about 01:30 a.m., her son, Shivam Panna, had gone to the house of Ramesh Panna to attend a marriage ceremony. During the celebration and dancing, dust was blowing, due to which her son sprayed water. On account of this, a dispute arose, and the accused persons threatened them. It is further alleged that the applicants, along with the other co-accused, used filthy language against them and thereafter, with common intention, committed violence upon them. It is also alleged that the accused persons entered the complainant's house, assaulted them, and further poured boiling water upon the complainant and her children. On the basis of the said report, an FIR was lodged against the applicants for the offences under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(2), 191(2), 192, and 331(6) of the BNS. After investigation, the applicants/accused was arrested on 22.05.2025 and has been in jail since then. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have not committed any offence as alleged against them. On the date of the incident, the applicants were present at the venue attending a marriage ceremony. During the night, Shivam Khalkho, the son of the complainant, had a dispute with one of the co-accused and became the aggressor. He assaulted the co-accused and further brought hot water from his house, attempting to pour it on the co- accused. In order to save himself, the co-accused caused minor injuries to him, while the applicants, along with the co-accused, tried to pacify the situation. However, later on, the applicants were 3 falsely implicated in the present case, even though they never caused any injury to the complainant or to any other person. It is further submitted that, as per the written report, the complainant’s son was pouring water at the place where the marriage ceremony was being held, which indicates that he was the one who started the nuisance, and when one of the co-accused objected, a dispute ensued leading to the alleged incident. Hence, it clearly appears that a false report has been lodged against the applicants. It is also submitted that all the offences alleged are bailable in nature except those under Sections 118(2) and 331(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the injury caused is not grievous in nature, nor is there any intention attributable to the applicants. Furthermore, a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 6378/2025, (a copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure A/2). The applicants have been in judicial custody since 22.05.2025, and therefore, they deserve to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicants are serious in nature. It is submitted that there are in total seven accused persons, including the present applicants, who, in furtherance of their common intention, have entered into the house of the complainant and committed assault upon the complainant and her family members, even going to the extent of pouring boiling water upon them. The medical report reveals that two of the injured persons have sustained grievous injuries, while one has sustained simple injury, clearly indicating the brutal nature of the assault. She 4 further contends that the offence under Sections 118(2) and 331(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are of serious nature and carry severe punishment, and the manner in which the incident was executed reflects premeditation and intention to cause bodily harm. It is further argued that granting bail to the applicants at this stage may adversely affect the investigation and the trial, as there is every possibility of tampering with evidence and influencing the witnesses. Therefore, she prays for rejection of the bail application. 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, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that the similar situated co-accused person namely, Manoranjan Kerketta has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 6378/2025, vide order dated 11.09.2025 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 22.05.2025 and the applicants have no criminal antecedent and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants on parity. 7. Let applicants, Mahajan Kerketta and Ramjane Baghel, involved in Crime No. 118/2025, registered at Police Station- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(2), 191(2), 192, 331(6) of B.N.S, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court 5 concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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 fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed 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 fixed 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 deliberated or without sufficient cause, then it shall be 6 open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal