1 2026:CGHC:9084 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1806 of 2026 Arshad Ali @ Monti S/o Majur Ali Aged About 21 Years R/o Near Masjid Ashwani Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vinod Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.02.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 65/2025 registered at Police Station - New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 296, 109, 121, 121(a) of BNS 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.24 16:21:30 +0530 2 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 19.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8479 of 2025. 3. According to the prosecution case, the complainant lodged a report at the concerned police station alleging that on the date of the incident, a dispute arose between the accused persons and the complainant, which subsequently escalated. It is alleged that during the course of the altercation, the accused persons assaulted the complainant with a knife, as a result of which the complainant sustained simple injuries. On the basis of the said complaint and the allegations made therein, the police registered an FIR against the present applicant and other accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 296, 109, 121, and 121A of the B.N.S., 2023, as well as under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and commenced investigation into the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is contended that although a minor dispute may have arisen between the applicant and the complainant at the time of the alleged incident, the applicant neither assaulted the injured person nor committed any of the offences as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that none of the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 296, 109, 121, and 121A of the B.N.S., 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act are made out against the applicant, and that the prosecution has failed to collect sufficient or credible material connecting him with the alleged crime. The applicant asserts that the FIR was registered without proper investigation and merely on suspicion, and that the 3 prosecution has concocted a false and fabricated story to implicate him. No incriminating article has been seized from his possession, and he has not committed any alleged act of loot; rather, his arrest is stated to be based solely on a memorandum without substantive evidence. Looking to the material available on record, no prima facie case is made out against him. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 12.04.2025 and has already undergone more than ten months of incarceration, and prolonged detention would adversely affect his future as well as the well-being of his family members. He reserves his right to raise additional grounds and to place relevant documents before this Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing. Being a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding, and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant has opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant had assaulted the injured person, as a result of which the injured sustained grievous injuries on the thigh and back. It is further contended that considering the serious nature of the injuries and the gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and further taking into account that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 19.11.2025 passed in 4 MCRC No. 8479 of 2025, this Court finds that the trial is presently in progress and the statement of the injured witness has yet not been recorded by the trial Court, despite summons having been issued. There being no substantial change in the circumstances since rejection of the earlier bail application, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the second bail application filed by the applicant is hereby rejected. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant - Arshad Ali @ Monti, involved in Crime No. 65/2025 registered at Police Station - New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 296, 109, 121, 121(a) of BNS 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav