1 2025:CGHC:52586 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8526 of 2025 1 - Niteshwar Kurre S/o Kailash Kurre Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Piparchedi, Post Bothli, P.S Arjuni Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Kailash Kurre S/o Kartik Kurre Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Piparchedi, Post Bothli, P.S Arjuni Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Govind Kosle S/o Kartik Kurre Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Piparchedi, Post Bothli, P.S Arjuni Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Vijay Joshi S/o Bedram Joshi Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Piparchedi, Post Bothli, P.S Arjuni Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Pawan Kurre S/o Ashwini Kurre Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Piparchedi, Post Bothli, P.S Arjuni Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - Domeshwar Tandon S/o Pawan Tandon Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Piparchedi, Post Bothli, P.S Arjuni Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Arjuni District Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Non-applicant(s) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 MCRC No. 7627 of 2025 1 - Naveen Kosle S/o Govind Kosle Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Piparchedi, Post Bothli, P.S Arjuni Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Umesh Yadav S/o Loknath Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Piparchedi, Post Bothli, P.S Arjuni Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Arjuni And District Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.10.2025 1. Since the above two bail applications are arising out of same incidents registered at same police station and same crime number, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Applications 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.60/2025, registered at Police Station Arjuni, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 117(1), 351(2), 190, 191(1), 117(2), 118(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.04.2025 at around 8:00 PM, when the complainant was sitting at veranda of 3 his house, the applicants, along with other co-accused persons, came and started shouting and abusing in front of the complainant's house. When the complainant and his family members came outside and saw that the applicants along with the other co-accused, were arguing with Purnima, who is also a family member of the complainant they try to stop the accused persons but on being asked to stop the accused persons started abusing and shouting, co-accused Pradeep assaulted Dhaneshwar Joshi with a rod. Based upon such, the aforementioned offences were registered against the applicants along with co-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there are cross versions of the incident and both the parties have sustained injuries. It is stated that one of the co-accused, namely Pradeep Kurre, is alleged to have inflicted injury to the injured person by means of a stick, whereas the present applicants are said to have only assaulted the injured persons with hands and fists. Due to such assault, the injured Dhaneshwar sustained grievous injury, which, however, is not dangerous to life, and the remaining injured persons have sustained only simple injuries. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet in the present case has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants are in judicial custody since 21.08.2025 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, he prays that the applicants may kindly be enlarged on bail. 4 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicants, along with other co- accused, have actively participated in the commission of the offence. It is submitted that due to the assault made by the applicants and co-accused persons, the injured Dhaneshwar sustained grievous injury and the role of each accused is clearly reflected in the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation. Considering the gravity of the offence and nature of injuries caused, it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants. 6. I have heard learned counsel 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 applicants and the fact that there are cross versions of the incident and both the parties have sustained injuries and one of the co-accused, namely Pradeep Kurre, is alleged to have inflicted injury to the injured person by stick, whereas the present applicants are said to have only assaulted the injured persons with hands and fists and due to such assault, the injured Dhaneshwar sustained grievous injury, which, however, is not dangerous to life, and the remaining injured persons have sustained simple injuries which reflects from MLC report and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicants are in jail since 21.08.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 5 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicants, Niteshwar Kurre, Kailash Kurre, Govind Kosle, Vijay Joshi, Pawan Kurre, Domeshwar Tandon, Naveen Kosle and Umesh Yadav, involved in Crime No.60/2025, registered at Police Station Arjuni, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 117(1), 351(2), 190, 191(1), 117(2), 118(2) of BNS, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in each case in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court 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 sufÏcient 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 6 and the applicants fail 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 10. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal