1 2026:CGHC:21676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4325 of 2026 Niyaz Khan S/o Abdul Satatar Khan Aged About 27 Years R/o Madni Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, In Front Of Salman Paan Palace, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, Presently Afroz Baag Badi, Mauhdapara, P.S. Moudhapara, District Raipur (C.G.)(As Per Chargesheet) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Moudhapara, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.05.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 32/2026 registered at Police Station Moudhapara, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 127(1), 109 and 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (for short ‘BNS’) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present case arises out of a serious incident of robbery coupled with assault by a deadly RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 weapon. The complainant, who is employed as a driver, lodged a report stating that on 11.02.2026 at about 8:00 PM, after completing his work, he was returning towards his house situated at Mohadapara, Raipur on his vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 MR 5862 while carrying an amount of Rs.20,000/- in cash. It is alleged that at about 8:30 PM, when the complainant reached near Mohadapara, the accused/applicant namely Niyaz Khan @ Niyaz, who was known to him, intercepted his way by arriving on a motorcycle and wrongfully restrained him. Thereafter, the accused allegedly demanded money from the complainant and upon refusal, started abusing him and forcibly snatched his mobile phone. It is further alleged that the accused took out a knife and assaulted the complainant by inflicting multiple blows on his thigh, leg and near the waist region, due to which the complainant fell down, and thereafter the accused removed Rs.20,000/- from the complainant’s pocket and fled from the spot. The incident was allegedly witnessed by nearby persons who intervened, upon which the accused escaped from the place of occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police registered the offence and during investigation, the present applicant was arrested on 12.02.2026. After completion of investigation, final report/charge-sheet bearing No. 35/2026 dated 10.04.2026 has been filed before the competent Court. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to a monetary dispute with the complainant. It is submitted that the applicant had 3 earlier advanced a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and on the date of the alleged incident, he had merely approached the complainant for return of the said amount. She further submits that even as per the prosecution story, the alleged incident occurred suddenly in the course of an altercation and there was no premeditation or prior planning on the part of the applicant to commit any offence, much less the serious offences alleged against him. It is also submitted that the allegations regarding use of a deadly weapon and intention to cause death are highly exaggerated and are not supported by the medical evidence available on record, as the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature and do not constitute grievous hurt. She further submits that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the applicant are not made out and the allegation of robbery is misconceived, inasmuch as the applicant was only demanding return of his own money and there was no dishonest intention to take away the property of the complainant. Considering the nature of the case, the trial is likely to take considerable time and prolonged pre-trial detention would amount to punishment before conviction, which is impermissible in law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia v. ED, Manish Sisodia v. CBI and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra. It is also submitted that though the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents under the Arms Act, the same are still pending consideration and the 4 applicant has not been convicted in any of the said cases. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 12.02.2026 and has already undergone more than two and a half months of incarceration, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the present applicant is involved in a serious offence of robbery and assault by a deadly weapon, wherein the applicant wrongfully restrained the complainant, assaulted him with a knife and robbed him of cash amounting to Rs.20,000/-. It is further submitted that the complainant sustained injuries due to the assault made by the applicant and sufÏcient material has been collected during investigation regarding his involvement in the alleged offence. She further submits that the applicant is also having two criminal antecedents under the Arms Act, which are still pending. Hence, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that though there are allegations that the 5 applicant assaulted the complainant with a knife and also robbed him of an amount of Rs.20,000/- and the applicant is having two criminal antecedents under the Arms Act, however, the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the complainant are stated to be on non-vital parts of the body and no grievous injury appears to have been caused. Further, considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.02.2026, and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant- Niyaz Khan, involved in Crime No. 32/2026 registered at Police Station Moudhapara, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 127(1), 109 and 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his 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 he 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 6 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the 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 him in accordance with law. 8. 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 Rahul Dewangan