1 2026:CGHC:7845 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1500 of 2026 Madan @ Rupsingh S/o Late Rohit Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Belmudi, Police Station Baloda, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Of Police Station Baloda, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.02.2026 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. 02/2026 registered at Police Station- Baloda, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Duryodhan Patel, lodged a report at Police Station Baloda alleging inter alia RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 that due to a matrimonial dispute, his wife had been residing for the last five years at her brother’s house in Village Belmudi, and on account of the said dispute, the present applicant, who is the brother-in-law of the injured, was hostile towards him. It is further alleged that on 31.12.2025 at about 2:00 PM, when the complainant was present at the house of his friend, namely Durga Mehar, the present applicant arrived there armed with an axe, abused him in filthy language, and assaulted him near his head, and when the applicant again attempted to attack, the complainant raised an alarm, which was witnessed by the mother of his friend, whereafter the applicant fled from the spot. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the alleged offences against the applicant, and he was subsequently arrested in connection with the commission of the said offences; hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that there exists a cross-FIR arising out of the same incident, wherein an offence under Sections 296 and 115(2) of the BNS has been registered against the injured, Duryodhan Patel, on the report lodged by Khirodini Patel, who is the wife of the injured and sister of the applicant, alleging that the injured was carrying a wooden stick and had assaulted her, and when the present applicant intervened, he too was assaulted on the right side of his head, which shows that the occurrence was a mutual quarrel. It is also contended that the applicant and the injured are close 3 relatives, being brothers-in-law, and they have amicably settled their dispute, and the injured has raised no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant. The applicant himself has suffered injuries, the investigation is still pending, He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is in jail since 03.01.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant is prima facie involved in the commission of a serious offence, as he assaulted the complainant with a deadly weapon, namely an axe, causing injury near the head, which clearly reflects his violent intent. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, 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 that though the charge-sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court, but the nature of the allegations, the existence of a cross-FIR arising out of the same incident, and the admitted position that the applicant and the injured are close relatives, being brothers-in-law, as the injured is the husband of the applicant’s sister, and that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the injured has no objection to the grant of bail, further the applicant 4 has no criminal antecedents and he is languishing in jail since 03.01.2026, and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Madan @ Rupsingh, involved in Crime No. 02/2026 registered at Police Station- Baloda, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 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, 5 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. 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