1 2026:CGHC:23332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4646 of 2026 Shravan Sahu S/o. Ramji Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village Salhaiya Chowki, Junapara, Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Takhatpur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.05.2026 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. 561/2025 registered at Police Station – Takhatpur District - Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 109(1), VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.05.18 15:16:23 +0530 2 115(2), 118, 190, 191(1), 296, 351(2) of the BNS. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicants have been rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 1325 of 2026. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 03.10.2025 at about 10.00 P.M. the complainant husband Manish Shukla was standing outside his house when co-accused person due to previous enmity come there and started abusing an threatening him it is alleged that the co-accused assaulted him with an Iron Rod and Stick and causing injuries. Thereafter when other person intervened they were also allegedly assaulted on the basis of said incident FIR was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the star injured witness, Manish Shukla, during his deposition before the learned Trial Court, has neither named the present applicant nor attributed any specific role to him, which constitutes a substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the first bail application. He further submits that out of four injured witnesses, three have already been examined before the Trial Court and none of them have specifically implicated the present applicant. The implication of the applicant is solely based upon the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which is not a substantive piece of evidence and carries weak evidentiary 3 value in the eyes of law. No weapon or any incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, thereby further weakening the prosecution case. There is no specific allegation of assault or active participation attributed to the applicant, as the principal role has been assigned to the co- accused persons. The applicant is in judicial custody since 24.10.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion; therefore, his continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible under law. It is also submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The present application is based on material change in circumstances, particularly the testimony of the injured witness not supporting the prosecution case against the applicant, making it a fit case for grant of bail. The applicant is ready and willing to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. 5. On the other hand, leaned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant along with other co-accused persons participated in the assault on Manish Shukla, Suryakant Rajput, Gokul Rajput and Uttam Rajput by abusing them, threatening to kill them, and causing injuries with iron rod and stick, and as per 4 MLC report, the injuries are found to be grievous in nature. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of 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, the allegations levelled against the applicant, and further considering that the first bail application of the applicant has already been dismissed on merits vide order dated 06.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 1325 of 2026, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that on 03.10.2025 at about 10:00 P.M., the applicant along with co-accused Krishna Sahu, Mahendra Rajput and other accused persons reached near the house of Manish Shukla on motorcycles and, owing to previous enmity, abused him in filthy language and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, all the accused persons collectively assaulted Manish Shukla with fists and blows, during which co-accused Krishna Sahu struck him on the head with an iron rod and Mahendra Rajput assaulted him with a stick, causing grievous head injuries. It further appears that when Suryakant Rajput reached the spot after being informed about the incident, he was also assaulted by the accused persons with an iron rod and stick. Thereafter, when Gokul Rajput and Uttam Rajput attempted to intervene and rescue him, they too were assaulted by the accused persons with rods and sticks, as a result of which all the injured persons sustained grievous injuries. The medical evidence available on record 5 indicates that the injuries sustained by the victims were of such serious nature that, in the absence of timely medical treatment, the same could have proved fatal. This Court finds that no new ground or substantial change in circumstances has been brought on record warranting reconsideration of the matter. Looking to the seriousness of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, and the specific role attributed to the present applicant, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant – Shravan Sahu, involved in Crime No. 561/2025 registered at Police Station – Takhatpur District - Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 109(1), 115(2), 118, 190, 191(1), 296, 351(2) of the BNS, is rejected. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav