1 2026:CGHC:22328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4425 of 2026 Smt. Rajnisha Verma W/o Shri Abhishek Verma Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 865, Sindhiya Nagar, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station - Dantewada , Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Keshaw Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No.130/2025, registered at Police Station-Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 121(1), 132, 221, 119(2), 308, 109, 319, 336(3), 340, 61(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim/injured, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Tomesh Verma, who is posted as S.D.O.P., Jagargunda, District Sukma, lodged a complaint before the concerned Police Station, Dantewada, stating that on 18.12.2025, he received a call from the present applicant on his mobile phone informing him that he had won the case in the Durg Court and that she was going to file a case before the High Court at Bilaspur. It is further stated that they wanted to meet at Dantewada to discuss the matter and arrive at a mutual settlement. Thereafter, on 19.12.2025, the victim reached Dantewada Court in his authorized Government Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. CG-18-N-0570. After some time, the present applicant met him near the Court, sat inside the victim’s vehicle for discussion and they proceeded towards Geedam Road. Meanwhile, the present applicant allegedly placed a sharp-edged knife near the waist of the victim and threatened him by saying, “she will kill him or cut the vein of her hand and send him to jail in a murder case.” She further demanded an amount of ₹25,00,000/- towards expenses and during the course of the incident, was also talking to some unknown person over the phone. Thereafter, when they reached near Anurag Hotel and the TVS showroom, one person suddenly came from behind, stood in front of the vehicle while brandishing a sharp-edged weapon, opened the door of the car and attacked the victim on his neck with an intention to kill him. However, the victim turned his neck in order to save himself and sustained serious injuries above the neck, on the left side of the chin and near the neck. Thereafter, the said person again attacked the victim on his stomach with the sharp-edged weapon, but the 3 victim defended himself and somehow managed to catch hold of co- accused Ravi Shankar Sahu. In the meantime, passersby intervened and the injured victim was taken to the hospital. After investigation, the concerned police registered the Dehati Nalishi, and on the basis of the said Dehati Nalishi, the FIR was registered against the present applicant and the co-accused persons. Thereafter, both the accused persons were arrested. Upon completion of the investigation, the concerned police filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity with the complainant/injured. It is submitted that the specific allegation of assault by knife and causing injuries to the victim/injured has been levelled against co-accused Ravi Shankar Sahu, whereas the present applicant is only alleged to have been sitting in the vehicle in question. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the prosecution story and no independent evidence has been collected by the prosecution to support the allegations. He also submits that the injuries sustained by the injured/complainant are simple in nature and the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the present applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused Ravi Shankar Sahu has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 4035/2026 vide order dated 01.05.2026 and the case of the present applicant stands on a better footing. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, 4 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, the applicant prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present applicant is specifically named in the FIR and there are serious allegations against her regarding criminal conspiracy, intimidation and demand of money from the victim/injured. It is further submitted that the applicant actively participated in the commission of the offence and the material collected during the course of investigation clearly connects her with the alleged crime. However, it is fairly submitted that the injuries sustained by the victim/injured have been found to be simple in nature. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the present applicant, the fact that the injuries sustained by the victim/injured have been found to be simple in nature and further considering that co-accused Ravi Shankar Sahu, against whom the specific allegation of assault by knife has been levelled, has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 4035/2026 vide order dated 01.05.2026, this Court is of the view that the case of the present applicant stands on a better footing than that of the co-accused and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is a lady aged 5 about 39 years, she is in judicial custody since 20.12.2025 and no further detention of the applicant is required, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the bail application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Rajnisha Verma, involved in Crime No.130/2025, registered at Police Station-Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 121(1), 132, 221, 119(2), 308, 109, 319, 336(3), 340, 61(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, be released on bail on her 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence 6 proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of 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 her in accordance with law. 9. 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 Kunal