1 2026:CGHC:19386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2003 of 2026 Manish Kumar Ramteke S/o Shyam Kumar Ramteke Aged About 20 Years R/o B.R.P. Colony, Station Maroda, Bhilai, Police Station- Newai, District Durg C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Newai, District Durg C.G. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27/04/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 423/2025 registered at Police Station Newai, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 3(5) of BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant reported the incident at Police Station Newai on 24.12.2025, stating that while he was returning home after working at the B.R.P. plant, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 near the house of Ajit Kumar situated at B.R.P. Colony, Station Maroda, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Newai, the present applicant along with co-accused Manish Kumar Ramteke confronted him and started using obscene language in connection with a dispute that had taken place on 23.12.2025. It is alleged that the applicant assaulted the complainant by striking him on the hand. Thereafter, co-accused Manish Kumar Ramteke picked up a knife lying nearby and attempted to attack the complainant on his neck, however, when the complainant tried to defend himself, the blow landed on his back. Upon the arrival of the complainant’s father and other persons at the spot, the applicant and the co-accused fled from the scene. During the course of investigation, the aforesaid accused persons were arrested. On the basis of the report, an offence under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. was registered at the concerned police station. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned J.M.F.C., Durg, District Durg (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and has not committed any offence. It is further contended that, as per the prosecution story itself, the alleged incident occurred when the injured along with his friend was returning on a motorcycle and it was the friend who entered the house of the present applicant, which itself indicates that no offence has been committed by the present applicant. It is also submitted that, as per the First Information Report, no specific allegations were levelled against the 3 present applicant and his name has been subsequently and falsely introduced in the statement recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the assault was made by the co-accused and the present applicant only reached the spot after the incident and did not participate in the alleged assault. It is further argued that no offence under Section 109 of the B.N.S. is made out against the present applicant as he has not assaulted the complainant. It is also contended that even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, no offence is made out against the present applicant and no prima facie case exists against him. It is additionally submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present applicant actively participated in the commission of the offence and is specifically alleged to have assaulted the injured with a thermocol cutter, as a result of which the injured sustained injuries on his back. It is further contended that although the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) does not explicitly specify the nature of the injury, the subsequent query report clearly opines that the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of injuries caused, she prays for rejection of the bail application. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, as well as the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court notes that although the present applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured with a thermocol cutter and the query report opines the injuries to be grievous in nature, the Medico-Legal Certificate does not specifically mention the nature of injuries. This Court further takes into account that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is also not disputed that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained in custody since 26.12.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the bail application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed 8. Let the Applicant -Manish Kumar Ramteke, involved in Crime No. 423/2025 registered at Police Station Newai, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 3(5) of BNS, 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:- 5 (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 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