1 2026:CGHC:6002 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1117 of 2026 Chandan Soni S/o Rajkumar Soni Aged About 23 Years At- Near Bholenath Mandir, Santoshi Nagar, Police Station - Tikrapara, District Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - City Kotwali, Raipur, C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.02.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 118/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 115(2), 351(5), 109(2), 3(5), 296 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant lodged a complaint before the concerned Police Station stating that the applicant, along with the co-accused, assaulted him with a knife over a previous dispute, as a result of which the injured, Rishikesh, sustained injuries. It is imperative to PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.04 15:10:39 +0530 2 submit that on the basis of the said complaint, an offence under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 109(2), and 3(5) of the BNS read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Chhattisgarh Arms Act, bearing Crime No. 118/25, was registered against the applicant and the co-accused, and the applicant was arrested on 10.07.2025. It is further respectfully submitted that the co-accused, Devraj Yadav, has been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 04.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8747/25. The applicant has been in custody since 12.06.2025, i.e., for more than seven months, and the charge-sheet has already been filed, which makes it clear that there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. Hence, keeping the applicant behind bars would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant was involved in a case under Sections 296, 115(2), 118(2), 351(2), and 3(5) of the BNS read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, in which he has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2026 passed in MCRC No. 622/2026. It is further submitted that the incidents occurred at short intervals, for which separate FIRs were lodged against the applicant. It is stated that the injuries allegedly sustained by the injured were caused by a knife, and that only one injury was a penetrating wound on the abdomen. As per the MLC report, no opinion was given by the doctor regarding the nature of the injuries, whereas the query report describes the injuries as grievous; however, there is no X-ray report to show any internal damage. It is further submitted that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which in one case he has been granted bail and other two cases are listed today, and one case is pending, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in custody since 12.06.2025, and the trial is likely 3 to take a considerable amount of time for its conclusion. Therefore, learned counsel prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. The applicant is having four criminal antecedents, and all are mentioned in bail application at paragraph No. 4(a). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that as per the MLC report, no opinion was given by the doctor regarding the nature of the injuries, whereas the query report describes the injuries as grievous, however, there is no X-ray report to show any internal damage, further the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which in one case he has been granted bail and other two cases are listed today, and one case is pending, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in custody since 12.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Chandan Soni, involved in Crime No. 118/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 115(2), 351(5), 109(2), 3(5), 296 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, 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:- 4 (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. 5 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti