1 2026:CGHC:23077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3481 of 2026 Jitendra Kumar Chandaniya S/o Premlal Chandaniya Aged About 38 Years R/o Satnami Para, Sankara, Police Station- Sihawa District Dhamtari (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Sihawa, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shivank Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 01/2026, registered at Police Station : Sihawa, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 3(5) & 238 of the BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, the present matter arises out of FIR VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.05.15 18:32:30 +0530 2 bearing Crime No. 01/2026 registered at Police Station Sihawa, initially under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which, upon completion of investigation, culminated in filing of the charge- sheet under Sections 109(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is alleged that on 04.01.2026 at about 07:00 PM, the injured/victim, namely Dhaneshwar Jogi, was sitting near the steps (Pachari) of Danteshwari Temple pond situated in Village Sankara and was talking on his mobile phone. At that time, taking advantage of the darkness, an unknown person allegedly approached him from behind and assaulted him with a hard and blunt object on the back of his head, causing injuries to his head and face. Thereafter, the injured was immediately taken to the hospital for medical treatment, and on the basis of the report lodged by the nephew of the injured against an unknown person, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the FIR was initially lodged against an unknown person and the applicant has been subsequently implicated during the course of investigation without there being any credible or direct evidence connecting him with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that even the statements of the informant Karan Jogi and the mother of the injured, Smt. Dhamabai Jogi, indicate that the assailant was an unknown person and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant. Learned counsel submits that the injured himself was not in a fit physical and mental condition at the time of recording of his statement, thereby rendering its evidentiary 3 value doubtful at this stage. It is also argued that the alleged seizure was made from an open and accessible place near the Mahanadi bridge, which was not in the exclusive possession of the applicant, and therefore the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel further submits that the only call detail record collected during investigation pertains to communication between the wife of the accused and the injured, and no CDR or location report has been brought on record to establish the applicant’s presence near the place of occurrence. It is also pointed out that there was an unexplained delay in the arrest of the applicant, as the FIR was registered on 04.01.2026 whereas the applicant was arrested on 11.01.2026 on the basis of alleged secret information. It is submitted that co-accused has already been granted bail by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, vide order dated 20.03.2026 in Bail Application No. 39/2026, and therefore the present applicant is also entitled to the benefit of parity. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a poor daily wage labourer and the sole earning member of his family, has been in judicial custody since 11.01.2026, and being a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that sufficient material has been collected during investigation to prima facie establish the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. It is contended that the applicant assaulted the injured/deceased with a hammer, causing grievous injuries. Though 4 the FIR was initially registered against an unknown person, the complicity of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of evidence collected by the prosecution. Considering the serious nature of the allegations and the material available on record, learned State counsel submits that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the material available on record, it is evident that the applicant is specifically alleged to have assaulted the injured Dhaneshwar Jogi with an iron hammer, causing grievous injuries. The medical evidence reflects that the victim sustained serious injuries, including fracture of the nasal bone and breakage of two front teeth. Prima facie, the applicant appears to have played the principal role in the commission of the offence. Further, though co-accused Chandra Prakash Chandania has been granted bail but the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing, as the specific allegation of inflicting the fatal blow with the weapon is attributed to him. Considering the serious nature of the allegations, the gravity of injuries caused to the victim, and the material collected during investigation, this Court does not find it appropriate to extend the benefit of bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the first bail application of the applicant – Jitendra Kumar Chandaniya, involved in Crime No. 01/2026, registered at Police Station : Sihawa, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence 5 punishable under Sections 109(1), 3(5) & 238 of the BNS., is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. 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