1 2026:CGHC:8822 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1763 of 2026 1 - Umesh Yadav S/o Milau Ram Yadav, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Jom, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai(C.G.) 2 - Lekhram Yadav S/o Milau Ram Yadav, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Jom, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Ankush Borkar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.02.2026 1. This the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.20 10:14:08 +0530 2 No.387/2025 registered at Police Station – Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 296, 115(2), 351(3) & 3(5) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.10.2025 at about 14:45 hours, the complainant, Suryakant Dhurve, appeared at Police Station Chhuikhadan and lodged a report stating that he is a resident of Village Jom and engaged in farming, and that on the same day at about 07:00 a.m., his father, Jagram Gond, had gone to graze goats towards Bhaisasur Khar of the village and returned home at about 09:00 a.m. in an injured condition, drenched in blood; upon being questioned, he informed that while grazing goats, the accused persons, namely Lekhram Yadav, Mukesh Yadav, Umesh Yadav and Milau Ram Yadav, in furtherance of their common intention and due to an earlier police report lodged against them, abused him, threatened to kill him and assaulted him, and accused Lekhram Yadav repeatedly struck blows on his head with a tangiya (axe) while the other accused persons assaulted him with fists, kicks and punches, causing injuries; thereafter, he somehow reached home and was admitted for treatment at the Government Hospital, and on the basis of the complaint, Crime No. 387/2025 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 109, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; during investigation, the spot map was prepared, the injured was medically examined, CT scan and X- ray reports were collected, the bed-head ticket was obtained, seizure proceedings were carried out, statements of the injured and witnesses were recorded, the accused persons were arrested and their memorandum statements were recorded, pursuant to which a blood- 3 stained iron tangiya (axe), clothes and other articles used in the incident were seized, and after completion of the investigation and other formalities, the charge-sheet was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case, It is submitted that the entire prosecution case mainly revolves around the co-accused who is alleged to have inflicted tangiya (axe) blows on the head of the injured, and there is no allegation that the present applicants used any weapon; the allegation against them is limited to abusing, threatening and assaulting by fists and kicks, with no specific overt act or injury attributed to them. The charge-sheet has already been filed and the investigation is complete, no recovery is to be made from the applicants and further custodial interrogation is not required; continued incarceration at this stage would amount to punishment before conviction. As per the MLC and CT scan reports, the injuries on the head correspond to blows allegedly given by the co-accused with a sharp weapon, and there is no medical evidence to show that the present applicants caused any grievous injury, as the alleged assault by fists and kicks is simple in nature. Applicant No. 1 aged about 24 years and Applicant No. 2 aged about 22 years are agriculturists, permanently rooted in society and supporting their families, and except one minor prior case of the year 2022, they have no serious criminal history and are not habitual offenders; they have remained in custody since 23.10.202, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application 4 of the present applicants and submitted that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed; she further submits that the present applicant allegedly assaulted the injured, resulting in grievous injuries, therefore, the present applicants are not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and on perusal of the case diary, MLC report and CT head report, it appears that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature and no internal damage has been reported. The applicants have been in custody since 23.10.2025, and the charge-sheet has already been filed, further, the co-accused, namely Milau Ram Yadav and Mukesh Yadav, have already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC Nos. 10134 of 2025 and 640 of 2026 vide orders dated 10.12.2025 and 11.02.2026. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. In view of the period of detention and the overall material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present applicants deserves to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Umesh Yadav & Lekhram Yadav, involved in Crime No.387/2025 registered at Police Station – Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 296, 115(2), 351(3) & 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with 5 the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. Office 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 vaibhav