1 2026:CGHC:5050 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1014 of 2026 Rahul Padey S/o Shri Ravishankar Padey Aged About 26 Years R/o Pandri Lake, Near Shiv Temple, P.S. Devendra Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Civil Lines, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant :Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State :Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2026 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. 465/2025, registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 24.09.2025 at around 4:30 P.M., the complainant (Haritandi), while returning from the District and VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 10:50:51 +0530 2 Sessions Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), was intercepted by the applicant and the co-accused persons, namely Anand Borle and Rahul Pandey. It is alleged that they started abusing the complainant and attacked him with a knife, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his left hand. Hence, the FIR was lodged. 3. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role to play in the commission of the alleged offence; that even as per the prosecution version, the alleged knife injury is stated to be on the complainant’s left hand, which is neither vital nor life-threatening, and there is no material on record to indicate any intention or preparation on the part of the applicant to commit a serious or scheduled offence as contemplated under Section 115(2) of the BNS; that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution story, as the MLC report shows that all the injuries are simple in nature and not grievous; that the co-accused, namely Sunny @ Rohit, has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 9696/2025 vide order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure A/3), thereby entitling the present applicant to the benefit of parity; that the applicant is a young man of 26 years and his continued detention would have an adverse effect on his mental state, career and future; that no useful purpose would be served by further keeping the applicant in custody; and that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and trial, is not likely to abscond, and is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting him the benefit of bail. 3 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. 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, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature, and further considering that the applicant has six previous criminal antecedents, out of which four cases have already been disposed of and two cases are pending, and that the co-accused, namely Sunny @ Rohit, has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 9696/2025 vide order dated 15.01.2026, and that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant has been in custody since 26.09.2025, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to allow the present application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Rahul Padey, involved in Crime No. 465/2025, registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 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:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect 4 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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav