1 2026:CGHC:1684 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 292 of 2026 Sandeep Dhruv S/o Narad Dhruv Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Mohbhatta Para Tilda Navra District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer Tilda Newra, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate along with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.01.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 399/2025 registered at Police Station Tilda-Newra, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 296, 115, 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.09.2025, at around 10:00 PM, the complainant Mohammad Farid Khan and Mohammad Akram, after having dinner, went for a walk near KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Bhattar Chowk, Newra, where they met Taufiq Ahmed and Shabaz Khan. At about 10:10 PM, residents of Mohbhatta Para when they were passing through the area for Ganesh Visarjan (immersion), Durgesh Yadav was swinging a stick, which struck the motorcycle of Taufiq Ahmed. When Taufiq Ahmed moved his motorcycle back and objected, Durgesh Yadav again swung the stick, which hit Taufiq Ahmed. Thereafter, Durgesh Yadav and other members of the Ganesh Samiti arrived and attempted to pacify the situation. In the meantime, a person named Kala arrived, hurled abuses referring to the mother and sister of Taufiq Ahmed, and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, Kala attacked Taufiq Ahmed with a knife, which he was carrying, as a result of which Taufiq Ahmed sustained a stab injury on his stomach. When the complainant, Shabaz Khan, and Mohammad Akram Khan attempted to intervene, Kala attacked them as well with the knife, with an intention to kill them, causing injuries to their stomach and back. Based upon such, an FIR have been registered against the co-accused persons and the present applicant has been implicated on the memorandum statement. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the present applicant did not assault the injured at any point of time and had merely reached the spot in order to intervene and pacify the situation. The allegations of assault with a knife are specifically against the co-accused persons, namely Durgesh and Kala, and no overt act of causing injury is attributed to the present applicant. It is further submitted that upon perusal of the 3 medical report, the injuries sustained by the injured have been found to be simple in nature, and no injury whatsoever is attributable to the present applicant. He further submits that the applicant was not named in the FIR and has been subsequently implicated only on the basis of the memorandum statement, which by itself is not substantive evidence. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 10.09.2025, and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is submitted that the applicant has three antecedents, out of which two cases have already been disposed of, and only one case is pending, which has been duly explained in paragraph No. 4(A) of the bail application. Considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned State counsel oppose the bail application and submits that there is no specific allegation of assault against the present applicant and that the allegations of causing injuries with a knife are against the co-accused persons. It is also submitted that the injuries reflected in the MLC are simple in nature. However, he strongly opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the present applicant has three criminal antecedents. Though two of the antecedents have been explained by the applicant, no particulars or satisfactory explanation has been furnished with respect to one pending criminal case. In view of the criminal antecedents of the applicant and his involvement in the present offence, the applicant does not deserve 4 the benefit of bail. Hence, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that there is no specific allegation of assault against the present applicant, that the allegations of causing injuries with a knife are attributed to the co-accused persons, and that the injuries reflected in the MLC are simple in nature, this Court is of the view that the role attributed to the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused. Further taking into account that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 10.09.2025 and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, thus, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Let the applicant, Sandeep Dhruv, involved in Crime No. 399/2025 registered at Police Station Tilda-Newra, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 296, 115, 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25 and 27 of the 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:- (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 5 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal