Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 60278 (CHH)

RAJ NAG v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/9986/2025 · 2025-12-04

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:59208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9986 of 2025 1 - Raj Nag S/o Late Bastimal Nag Aged About 23 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Ward No. 22, Mahasamund, Ps, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Karan Yadav S/o Devanand Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Ward No. 22, Mahasamund, Ps, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 297/2025 registered at Police Station - Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 118(1), 309(6) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, is that on 05.07.2025, the complainant, Guddu Singh, appeared at the police station and lodged an oral report stating that he resides at Ward No. 08, Saraipali, District Mahasamund. He and his younger brother, Om Prakash Singh, had come to Mahasamund to sell herbal oil and had set up a tent near Pitiazhar Road, Mandi, Mahasamund, where they were selling their goods. On the night of 30.06.2025, both were sleeping inside the tent when, at around 01:00 a.m., three boys arrived and asked for water. His younger brother Om Prakash gave them water, after which the three boys began demanding money. They grabbed the complainant by his collar and searched the pockets of his shirt and trousers. When they refused to give money, the three boys threatened to kill them and assaulted his brother with fists and a knife, inflicting two to three stab wounds on his brother’s right leg, causing injuries to his leg and abdomen. He immediately took his brother to the District Hospital, Mahasamund, where after primary treatment the doctor referred him to Raipur, and from there he was admitted to Seth Kanwar Nursing Home, Pithora. On this basis, Crime No. 297/2025 under Sections 118(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was registered against unknown accused persons at Police Station Mahasamund. In his police statement, the complainant further stated that the accused persons, after threatening to kill his brother and assaulting him with fists and a knife, also snatched his mobile phone and fled from the spot, upon which Section 309(6) of the BNS was added to the case. Hence, the present bail application. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they have been falsely implicated and the FIR suffers from an unexplained delay, which creates serious doubt about the prosecution story. It is submitted that the essential ingredients of Sections 118(1) and 118(2) of the BNS are not fulfilled, as the applicants were implicated only on the basis of CCTV footage which has not been made part of the charge sheet, and even after arrest, neither the complainant nor the victim has identified them before the Magistrate. It is further argued that the applicants have no connection or dealings with the victim and were roped in solely on the basis of memorandum statements, only to harass them and their families. He also submits that the applicants are young, around 23 years of age, and continued incarceration will severely affect their career and mental well-being. The trial has not commenced and is likely to take considerable time, custodial interrogation is no longer required as the charge sheet has been filed, and the conduct of the complainant/prosecution appears doubtful. He further submits that the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents, they are in jail since 09.07.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave, as the complainant’s brother sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of the body and had to undergo surgery. It is further submitted that during investigation, the knife used in the offence and other 4 incriminating articles were recovered from both applicants, clearly establishing their direct involvement in the assault and robbery. Considering the severity of the injuries, the recovery from the applicants, and the overall seriousness of the offence, the applicants are not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the injured sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of the body and had to undergo surgery. The material collected during investigation further shows that the knife used in the assault, along with other incriminating articles, has been recovered from the present applicants, indicating their active and direct involvement in the offence. The act attributed to the applicants involves serious allegations of assault with a deadly weapon, threat to life, and robbery, which reflect their conduct and the gravity of the offence. In view of the nature of injuries, the manner in which the offence was committed, and the recovery made from the applicants, this Court does not find it a fit case to extend the benefit of bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Raj Nag and Karan Yadav, involved in Crime No. 297/2025 registered at Police Station - Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 118(1), 309(6) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 5 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul dewangan