1 2026:CGHC:19424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3793 of 2026 Sahettar Sahu S/o Mahajan Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Ramtala Thana And Tehsil Bilaigarh , District- Sarangarh, Bilaigarh, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh, Bilaigarh, Chhattigarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 06/2026 registered at Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh, Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 punishable under Sections 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(1), 109(1), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Puleshwar Verma, had earlier made a complaint against the village Sarpanch, due to which the accused persons developed enmity against him. On 03.01.2026, the applicant Sahetter Sahu, along with co-accused persons, allegedly intercepted the complainant on the way and, during a dispute over the said complaint, assaulted him. It is alleged that the applicant took out a knife and caused injuries to the complainant on his left shoulder and abdomen. Thereafter, when the complainant, along with his father Maniram Verma and elder uncle Shobhit Ram Verma, was going to the police station to lodge a report, the accused persons again stopped them, abused them in filthy language, and, with a common intention to kill, attacked them using sticks, rods, and stones, causing serious head injuries and bleeding. The case diary indicates that the injured persons sustained significant injuries, and due to their serious condition, they were referred to a higher medical center. The medical reports show that while the complainant suffered simple injuries, the other two injured persons sustained grievous and life-threatening injuries, which led to the registration of alleged offence against the applicant and subsequently, the applicant was arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to prior village rivalry and enmity arising out of complaints related to Panchayat construction work. It is contended that such hostility creates a strong possibility of false implication, exaggeration, and over- implication. The prosecution has allegedly failed to present the true genesis of the incident, as the matter is in fact a case of cross-version, wherein the applicant had also lodged a complaint on 03.01.2026 stating that he was assaulted by the complainant side and sustained injuries. He further submits that although the applicant’s complaint was made on the same day, it was not promptly registered, whereas the complainant’s version was immediately converted into an FIR. The applicant’s counter-case was registered only on 05.01.2026, indicating unfair and biased investigation from the outset. The delay in registering the applicant’s FIR, despite his injuries, suggests suppression of his version and an attempt to portray the complainant side as the sole victim. He also submits that the prosecution story is exaggerated and inconsistent, attributing both a specific knife assault and a general collective attack with vague and omnibus allegations. The medical evidence does not support claims of severe injuries, as the injured persons were discharged within a short period. It is submitted that the incident appears to be a mutual fight between rival groups, and the actual sequence of events and individual roles can only be determined during trial, making the case fit for 4 bail rather than continued detention. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant later submits that bail applications of three of the identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Bhagirathi Yadav, Vijay Sahu and Daras Yadav, have already been allowed by this Court vide orders dated 08.04.2026 and 20.04.2026 passed in MCRC Nos.3113 of 2026 and 3500 of 2026, respectively, further the applicant is in jail since 08.01.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant in connivance with other co-accused persons, due to prior enmity, wrongfully restrained the complainant and his relatives, abused them, and assaulted them with a knife as well as sticks, rods, and stones, causing injuries, including grievous head injuries, with an intention to cause their death. He also submits that the co- accused persons who have been granted bail by this Court were granted bail on the ground that they assaulted the injured by hands and stick whereas, present applicant has been assaulted the injured by knife, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and 5 perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 08.01.2026, the fact that the materials available on record prima facie reveals that the applicant, in furtherance of a prior enmity and in concert with co-accused persons, not only wrongfully restrained the complainant and his relatives but also actively participated in a brutal assault, wherein he is specifically attributed the role of inflicting injuries by means of a knife on vital parts of the body. The medical evidence further indicates that while the complainant sustained simple injuries, the other injured persons suffered grievous and life-threatening injuries, thereby reflecting the severity and intensity of the attack, and the contention of parity with co-accused persons who have been granted bail does not come to the aid of the applicant, inasmuch as their role is clearly distinguishable, they having allegedly used only hands and sticks, whereas the present applicant is attributed with the use of a deadly weapon i.e. knife, therefore, in view of the serious nature of the offence and the specific overt act assigned to the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Sahettar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 06/2026 registered at Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh, Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence 6 punishable under Sections 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(1), 109(1), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil