1 2025:CGHC:52821 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7537 of 2025 1 - Umesh Chopkar @ Shubham S/o Late Niraj Chopkar Aged About 25 Years R/o Idgahbhatha, Gali No. 09, Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Cause Title Mention As Per Challan)...(Husband Name Of Deponent Mentioned In Affidavit Is Correct.) ... Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer S.B. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1026/2024 registered at Police Station - Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 296, 351 (2), 109 (1), 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at the concerned police station alleging that, 30.12.2024 at about 08:00 p.m., when the complainant was at Milan Chowk, Tikrapara, the applicant along with the co-accused persons came there and started abusing the SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 complainant over old enmity. When the applicant forbade them, the applicant and the co-accused assaulted the complainant by means of knife and thereafter, both of them fled from the spot. Due to the assault, the complainant/injured suffered grievous injuries over his person. Acting on the complaint, the police registered a case under Sections 296, 351 (2), 109 (1), 3 (5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the applicant. During the course of investigation, he was arrested on 23.04.2025. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent, he has not committed any offence as alleged and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime. He submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and there is no material against the applicant in the entire charge-sheet. He submits that mother of the victim (PW -1), Mohan Sahu (PW-2) and the complainant/injured (PW -5) have been examined before the learned Trial Court and they have not supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that it was the co-accused who had caused injury to the complainant and injuries sustained by applicant is simple in nature. Further, there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant. He is in jail since 23.04.2025, and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that though charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case, however, there specific allegations leveled against the applicant. He contended the injuries sustained by the complainant are grievous in nature which is evident from the medical report of the complainant which is produced before this Court during the course of argument. He further submits that deposition of witness is subject matter of appreciation by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offense leveled against the applicant and also, the fact that the complainant has leveled specific allegations against the applicant and the medical report produced before this Court stating the injuries sustained by the complainant to be grievous in nature, furthermore, considering the gravity and seriousness of this case and it cannot be a case of false implication, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Umesh Chopkar @ Shubham, involved in Crime No. 1026/2024 registered at Police Station - Tikrapara, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 296, 351 (2), 109 (1), 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, is rejected at this stage. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Dey