1 2026:CGHC:10763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 357 of 2026 Ghanshyam Sen S/o Shivnath Sen Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Balaudi, Ps And Tehsil - Palari, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, C.G. At Present R/o Village - Cherakapur, Ps- Palari, Balodabazar - Bhatapara, C.G. (Correct And Complete Address Mentioned) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Ps - Palari, Balodabazar - Bhatapara, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sobhit Koshta, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.03.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 362/2025, registered at Police Station : Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 333, 309(4) and 109 of BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per the original KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 record, the complainant Saurabh Kumar Sahu lodged a written report at Police Station Palari stating that on 29.09.2025 at about 10:00 A.M., he had left his house for Chanda Devi Hospital, Balodabazar. At that time, his grandfather Hariram Sahu and grandmother Smt. Geeta Sahu were present at home, while his parents had gone to the agricultural field for work. When his parents returned from the field at about 3:30 P.M., they found his grandmother Smt. Geeta Sahu lying unconscious and covered with blood inside the house. On seeing this, they gave her water and after regaining consciousness, she stated that Shiva Nai (barber) had come to the house and after shaving the beard of his grandfather, he caught hold of her by the neck and assaulted her with a sharp-edged weapon with the intention to kill her. She further stated that the accused looted two silver anklets (lachha) from her feet and fled away. It was further reported that the injured Geeta Sahu had sustained injuries above her right eye on the forehead from which blood was oozing and there were injury marks on her neck. She was admitted to Chanda Devi Hospital, Balodabazar, where she is undergoing treatment. On the basis of the said report, a crime was registered and taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating OfÏcer inspected the place of occurrence. Blood stains found on the floor were collected with cotton and seized after preparing a seizure memo. Statements of the complainant, the injured and other witnesses were recorded. On 03.11.2025, the accused Ghanshyam Sen was taken into custody and upon interrogation he admitted the commission of the offence 3 and stated that the silver anklets were lost somewhere while he was fleeing from the spot. His memorandum statement was recorded and the razor/knife (ustra/chhura) used in the commission of the offence was seized. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to cause the death of the injured and as per the CT scan report of the neck and brain, no fracture or internal damage has been found. The injury report shows only lacerated wounds, whereas the prosecution case alleges that the injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon (shaving blade/ustara), which creates serious doubt about the prosecution story. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the incident was committed by one Shiva Nau whereas the present applicant is Ghanshyam Sen and there is no material on record to establish that both are the same person. Moreover, no stolen property has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and it has been alleged that the silver anklets were lost while the accused was fleeing, which further indicates false implication. It is also submitted that the applicant is suffering from about 60% permanent disability in his left upper limb, which supports his defence and the disability certificate has been filed along with the application as Annexure A-3. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries sustained by the injured are not fatal in nature and are not sufÏcient to cause death and therefore no 4 offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. As per the medical report included in the charge-sheet, no grievous injury has been found and the injured was discharged from the hospital on the same day, which clearly shows that the injuries are simple in nature and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and further he is in jail since 03.11.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant has committed a serious offence and there is sufÏcient material available on record against him. It is submitted that the injured witness has specifically named the accused and clearly stated that the applicant assaulted her and robbed her silver anklets. It is further submitted that the injured sustained lacerated injuries over the forehead above the right eye and injury marks on the neck, which clearly corroborate the prosecution case. During investigation, the applicant was taken into custody and he made a memorandum statement admitting his involvement in the offence and the weapon used in the commission of the offence was recovered at his instance. It is further submitted that considering the nature of allegations, the manner in which the offence has been committed and the material available on record, the offence under Section 307 IPC is prima facie made out. Therefore, looking to the seriousness and gravity of the offence, she prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- 5 diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of allegations, the medical evidence and the documents available on record, this Court finds that although the injuries have been opined to be grievous in nature, however, no fracture or internal damage has been found and there is no material to indicate that the injuries were sufÏcient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and he is in jail since 03.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Ghanshyam Sen, involved in Crime No. 362/2025, registered at Police Station : Palari, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 333, 309(4) and 109 of BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (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. 6 In case of his absence, without sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce 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 Kunal