1 2025:CGHC:50631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8021 of 2025 Yasin Sheikh @ Sonu S/o Late Haroon Sheikh Aged About 35 Years (Wrongly Mentioned In Order Impugned As 25) R/o Bhavana Nagar, In Front Of Anika Heights Latifa Manzil Shankar Nagar Police Station Khamhardih Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Khamhardih, District- Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate Assisted by Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/10/2025 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. 150/2025 registered at Police Station Khamhardeeh, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 191(3), 190, 333, 109, 324(4) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. (As per charge- sheet). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the allegation against the applicant/accused is that when the complainant objected to co- accused Sanjay Choudhary for throwing leftover or stale food near the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 road in front of his house, the said co-accused Sanjay Choudhary abused the complainant in filthy language by using obscene words relating to his mother and sister. Hearing the commotion, the complainant’s son and his friends arrived at the spot, whereupon the accused persons started abusing them in obscene language and pushing them around. When the complainant tried to intervene, the accused persons assaulted him with fists and kicks. A short while later, Yaseen Sheikh @ Lal Sonu (applicant) along with 10–15 associates allegedly broke open the door of the complainant’s house, entered the premises forcibly while armed with sticks and lathis, and, in furtherance of a common intention, the applicant/accused along with the other co-accused persons launched a deadly assault upon the complainant party, causing injuries. On which an offence under Section 296, 351 (3), 190, 191(3), 333 and 109 and 324(4) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. It is submitted that though the applicant’s name appears in the FIR, there is no specific allegation that he assaulted the complainant with any deadly weapon or caused any grievous injury with an intention to kill. The investigation reveals that a mere quarrel took place between Sanjay Chaudhary and Rakesh Chand Tiwari regarding the issue of feeding leftover food to cows, and except for a scuffle, no overt act has been attributed to the applicant in furtherance of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that, as per the statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, the applicant was present at the spot later and did not assault anyone with a knife or 3 rod, as alleged. The so-called weapon recovered from him is a vegetable-cutting knife, and as per the MLC, no injury has been found to be caused by such a weapon. The injuries sustained by the complainant and others are simple in nature, therefore, the ingredients of Section 109 of the BNS are not attracted. He further submits that the main accused, Raghav Agrawal, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 in MCRC No. 6610/2025 and co-accused Sanjay Chaudhary has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 24.09.2025 in MCRC No. 7724/2025. The remaining eight co-accused persons have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Court on 22.09.2025. Hence, on the principle of parity, the present applicant also deserves similar relief. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further urged that the applicant himself sustained injuries during the incident, which shows that he was not the aggressor. A complaint was even made by the daughter of co- accused Sanjay Chaudhary before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, stating that the complainant’s side was the aggressor. Moreover, the applicant’s three-year-old daughter is suffering from a serious cardiac ailment and requires regular medical treatment at Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. The applicant, being the sole earning member of the family, is in custody since 08.07.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, considering the overall facts, the nature of allegations, the parity with co-accused already enlarged on bail, and the humanitarian ground of the applicant’s family circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant may kindly be released on bail. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that 4 the case involves a serious incident of assault and use of obscene language in public, followed by the alleged forcible entry into the complainant’s house by the applicant and his associates. It is submitted that the FIR clearly narrates the chain of events in which the complainant party sustained injuries during the incident. The investigation revealed the involvement of the applicant along with other co-accused persons in acts of violence, and a weapon, a vegetable-cutting knife was recovered from the applicant, which, though not resulting in grievous injury, indicates his participation in the alleged unlawful acts. It is further submitted that the applicant’s previous conduct, including being present at the scene with multiple associates during the alleged assault, cannot be ignored. The submissions regarding his family circumstances and medical condition of his minor daughter, while noted, are personal considerations and do not outweigh the seriousness of the offence alleged. She further submits that the applicant’s argument regarding parity with co- accused who have been granted bail is not determinative, as each application must be considered on its own facts and circumstances, including the role of the accused in the alleged offence. Grant of bail at this stage may hamper the ongoing investigation and affect the course of justice. Therefore, it is prayed that the present bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the investigation has already been completed and charge- 5 sheet has been filed before the competent Court further, the injuries were found to be simple in nature and the applicant is in jail since 08.07.2025 and further considering the fact that the co-accused namely Raghav Agrawal, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 in MCRC No. 6610/2025 and co-accused namely Sanjay Chaudhary has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 24.09.2025 in MCRC No. 7724/2025 and the remaining eight co-accused persons have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Court on 22.09.2025 thus, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant -Yasin Sheikh @ Sonu, involved in Crime No. 150/2025 registered at Police Station Khamhardeeh, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 191(3), 190, 333, 109, 324(4) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya 6 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 fixed 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 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 applicant is deliberate or without sufficient 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. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal