1 2026:CGHC:3020 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 641 of 2026 Rahul Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o House No. 9/a, Street No. 86, H.S.C.L. Colony, Sector-06, Civic Centre, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Supela Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Dr. Arpit Lall , Advocate along with Mr. Ayush Lall, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.01.2026 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. 1418/2025 registered at Police Station- Supela Bhilai, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 296, 115(2), 324(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.11.2025 at about 4:00 PM, the complainant, Simranjit Singh, along with his friend Amritpal RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Singh, while returning from Raipur, stopped at an idli cart situated in front of Ram Rasoi near Nehru Chowk. At that time, a few boys were arguing among themselves, and one of them, who had his hand in plaster and was under the influence of alcohol, started quarrelling with the complainant. Thereafter, when Amritpal Singh was taking out the car to leave, the said person assaulted him with a stick, causing injury to his left hand. When the complainant intervened, an associate of the assailant abused him and attacked him with a knife with an intention to kill, resulting in injuries on his chest, stomach, back, and waist. It is further alleged that when Amritpal Singh attempted to record the incident on his mobile phone, the assailants snatched the phone, damaged the car by hitting it with a brick, and fled from the spot in a Swift car bearing registration No. CG-07-CC-9445. On the basis of the said incident, an FIR has been registered and the present bail application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 296, 115(2), 324(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is contended that due to political vendetta and a motivated investigation, the present applicant has been unnecessarily roped in, despite the fact that the FIR itself attributes the knife attack to co-accused B. Sonu, from whose possession the knife has been seized, and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the applicant. It is argued that the allegations 3 against the applicant are unreliable, inasmuch as the medical report reveals that the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature, with only a 2 cm wound and superficial abrasions. It is also submitted that the co-accused, namely Himanshu Patale, has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Court, Durg, vide order dated 09.12.2025. He further submits that the applicant is pursuing higher education and his continued incarceration would irreparably damage his academic career. It is contended that the applicant is a respectable person of the locality and has been made a scapegoat by the prosecution. it is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 30.11.2025, charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, the incident occurred on 30.11.2025 at about 4:00 PM near Nehru Chowk, where the accused persons, acting in concert, assaulted the complainant and his friend, and one of the assailants attacked the complainant with a knife with an intention to kill, causing injuries on vital parts of the body. It is further submitted that the accused persons also snatched the mobile phone, damaged the vehicle, and fled from the spot, which clearly reflects their criminal intent and active participation in the offence. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of injuries, and the manner in which the offence was 4 committed, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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 and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 30.11.2025, the fact that though the applicant and the co- accused person were involved in the present case, and admittedly, as per the prosecution's case, it was the co-accused, namely, B. Sonu, who is alleged to have directly assaulted the complainant with the knife and from whose possession the weapon was recovered, while the applicant is alleged to have accompanied the co-accused, but the said act was attributed to co-accused person, further the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused, namely, B. Sonu, who committed the said act, the medical report indicates that the injuries sustained are simple in nature, the co-accused, namely Himanshu Patale, has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Court, Durg, vide order dated 09.12.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant – Rahul Kumar, involved in Crime No. 1418/2025 registered at Police Station- Supela Bhilai, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 296, 115(2), 324(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms 5 Act, 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. 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 6 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 Rahul Dewangan