1 2026:CGHC:22085 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3254 of 2026 Chetan Das Bairagi S/o. Bhogdas Bairagi Aged About 35 Years R/o.- Village Ruchida, Tehsil And P.S. Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Pusour District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.05.2026 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. 11/2026 registered at Police Station Pusour District- Raigarh, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 13.01.2026 at about 9:00 AM, the complainant Durga Bairagi was talking with her father RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Sadanand Bairagi under a shed situated outside their house, while the applicant/accused Chetan Das Bairagi was standing on the street and abusing loudly. In the meantime, the complainant’s father jokingly slapped her younger sister, upon which the complainant also jokingly stated that she would hit her father. At that moment, the applicant became enraged, started abusing the complainant and her family members, and threatened to kill Sadanand Bairagi. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly took out a knife kept by him and assaulted Sadanand Bairagi by causing injuries on his abdomen and lips. During the course of investigation, the involvement of the applicant/accused in the alleged offence was found, pursuant to which he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to old family dispute. It is further submitted that the true and actual facts have neither been properly asserted nor fairly ascertained by the complainant before lodging the FIR. The allegations levelled against the applicant are general, vague and do not prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2) and 118(B) of the BNS. It is also submitted that except the memorandum statement, no other incriminating material is available on record against the present applicant and the said memorandum statement is inadmissible in evidence. He further submits that nothing incriminating has been seized from the possession of the applicant and the injuries sustained by the complainant’s father are 3 simple in nature and no grievous injury has been caused. It is also submitted that though the charge-sheet has not been filed, but the applicant is in jail since 08.03.2026 and has no previous criminal antecedents, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is specifically named in the FIR and there are specific allegations against him of assaulting the complainant’s father with a knife, causing injuries on his abdomen and lips. It is further submitted that sufÏcient material is available on record connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the present applicant, the fact that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature and are confined to the chest and abdomen region, the fact that no grievous injury has been reported. Further the fact that though the charge- sheet has not been filed, but the applicant is in jail since 08.03.2026 and has no previous criminal antecedents, and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the 4 applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant- Chetan Das Bairagi, involved in Crime No. 11/2026 registered at Police Station Pusour District- Raigarh, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(b) of 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 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 5 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