Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 52811 (CHH)

KARAN BANERJEE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/7954/2025 · 2025-10-07

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:50113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7954 of 2025 Karan Banerjee S/o Late Shri Merkanti Banerjee Aged About 19 Years R/o Devrikhurd Near FCI Godown (Wrongly Mentioned As Godam) Police Station Torwa, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Torwa, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Yashkarn Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.10.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 119/2025 registered at Police Station – Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) offence under Sections 351(3), 109, 191(3), 190, 296, 351(2), 3(5) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the facts narrated in the FIR by the complainant, the complainant and his friend, Arun Das, were attacked near the water tank by the present accused along with his associates using deadly weapons, due to ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.13 11:27:34 +0530 2 which Arun Das sustained injuries and was later taken to the hospital. Accordingly, the FIR has been registered under Sections 351(3), 109, 191(3), and 190 of the BNS, as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the said scuffle took place due to a rivalry between two groups. Even the present applicant sustained injuries, and only in retaliation, he was compelled to attack the complainant and his friend in order to safeguard himself. He submits that the present applicant, solely as a measure of self-defence and without using any deadly weapon, attacked the complainant. The other co- accused were in possession of deadly weapons, and not the present applicant. The applicant has been unnecessarily roped in for no fault of his own. He further submits that in the entirety of the FIR, the name of the applicant appears to have been inserted forcefully, only to somehow make sense of the alleged incident, whereas his actual involvement is nowhere substantiated. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 10.07.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel, appearing for the objector oppose the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, assaulted the victim with a knife on his abdomen, due to which he received grievous injuries, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in the case diary and further the fact that the applicant, along with other co- accused persons, assaulted the victim with a knife on his abdomen, due to which he received grievous injuries, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the first bail application of the applicant – Karan Banerjee, involved in Crime No. 119/2025 registered at Police Station – Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) offence under Sections 351(3), 109, 191(3), 190, 296, 351(2), 3(5) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. 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 Abhishek