1 2026:CGHC:22898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4506 of 2026 Baljor Singh S/o. Durjan Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village Jhinpuri, Bajranbali Mohalla, Chowki- Korbi, P.S.- Passan, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Chowki- Korbi, Police Station- Passan, District- Korba (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. This is the First 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. 233/2025 registered at Police Station- Passan, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109 of BNS and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 11.12.2025, the complainant, namely Durjan Singh, lodged a Dehati Nalishi at CHC Podi-Uproda stating therein that on the same day at about 02:30 PM, his son, namely Baljor Singh Maravi (present applicant), was taking paddy KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 from the house to sell it for consuming liquor. When the complainant objected and told him that if the paddy was sold, they would have nothing left to eat, the accused became enraged and with an intention to kill him, brought a sword from somewhere and assaulted him on his neck. However, the complainant slightly bent his neck, due to which the blow landed on his left ear, causing the ear to be partially severed and resulting in grievous injuries on his ear and neck. It has further been alleged that the accused assaulted the complainant with the intention to commit his murder and had the complainant not moved aside, the blow would have cut his neck and caused his death. The incident was witnessed by the complainant’s daughter-in-law Anita, and thereafter the complainant narrated the incident to his wife Kalawanti, daughter Sukwaro and son-in-law Pratap. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the offence was registered and taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, sufÏcient incriminating material was found against the applicant/accused and accordingly he was arrested on 12.12.2025. Since the accused was found to be in illegal possession of a sword/weapon and had used the same in the commission of offence, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were also added. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet against the applicant/accused was filed before the competent Court on 27.12.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, upon committal, the case was received by the concerned Court on 16.02.2026 and thereafter the matter is fixed for arguments on charge on 28.02.2026. 3 The prosecution case against the applicant/accused is that he was illegally possessing a sword/weapon and had assaulted his father/complainant with the said weapon by inflicting a blow on his neck with an intention to commit his murder, pursuant to which Crime No. 233/2025 was registered at Outpost Korbi, Police Station Pasan for the offences punishable under Section 109 of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. At present, the case is at the stage of arguments before framing of charge. The memorandum statement of the applicant/accused, the seizure of the sword effected at his instance, and the statements of the prosecution witnesses prima facie reveal the involvement and complicity of the applicant/accused in the commission of the alleged offence. 3. 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 although the prosecution story alleges that the applicant assaulted his father/complainant with a sword with an intention to commit his murder, however, during the course of trial, the complainant/injured witness, who is the father of the present applicant, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case before the trial Court. He further submits that in his examination-in-chief, the complainant/injured categorically deposed that the incident had occurred accidentally while he was travelling on a motorcycle along with the applicant and was sitting on the pillion seat and due to the applicant losing balance, he fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. It is submitted that the complainant has completely denied the allegations of assault by sword as alleged by the 4 prosecution. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon Annexure A/3, which is the deposition of the complainant/injured witness recorded before the trial Court. It is further submitted that since the main prosecution witness, namely the complainant/injured himself, has not supported the prosecution story and has materially contradicted the allegations levelled in the FIR and case diary statements, no prima facie case survives against the present applicant and further in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant assaulted the injured/complainant, namely Durjan Singh, by means of a sword with an intention to commit his murder, as a result of which the injured sustained grievous injuries on his left ear, face and neck region and a portion of his left ear was severed. It is submitted that the nature of injuries clearly reflects the intention and knowledge of the applicant to cause death of the injured and had the injured not moved aside at the relevant time, the blow inflicted by the applicant would have cut his neck, resulting in his death. Learned State counsel further submits that though learned counsel for the applicant has attempted to take benefit of a portion of the examination-in-chief of the complainant/injured witness, wherein he stated that he sustained injuries after falling from a motorcycle while travelling with the applicant, however, in his cross- examination, the complainant/injured, who is the father of the applicant himself, has categorically supported the prosecution case in material 5 particulars. It is submitted that the complainant specifically admitted that on the date of incident at about 02:30 PM, the applicant was taking paddy kept in the house to sell it for consuming liquor and when the complainant objected to the same by saying that if the paddy was sold, the family would have nothing to eat, the applicant became extremely enraged. The complainant further admitted that thereafter the applicant brought a sword and assaulted him on his neck with an intention to kill him, and when he bent down to save himself, the sword blow struck the left side of his face and below his ear, causing a portion of his left ear to be cut off. The complainant has further categorically admitted in his cross-examination that had he not bent down, his throat would have been cut and he would have died due to the assault made by the applicant. He also admitted that the incident was witnessed by his daughter-in-law Anita and that after sustaining injuries caused by the sword assault, he was taken to Community Health Centre, Podi-Uproda for treatment, where he informed the police personnel of Outpost Korbi regarding the incident committed by the applicant. Thus, learned State counsel submits that merely because the complainant made certain inconsistent statements in his examination-in-chief, the same would not demolish the prosecution case inasmuch as in his cross-examination he has fully corroborated and supported the prosecution story regarding the assault made by the applicant with a deadly weapon. Therefore, considering the serious nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out in favour of the applicant. 5. I have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the case 6 diary with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the present applicant, as well as the material available on record, this Court finds that prima facie sufÏcient evidence is available against the applicant regarding his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. The prosecution case reveals that the applicant assaulted the injured/complainant, who is his own father, by means of a deadly weapon i.e. sword and caused injuries on the vital part of his body. As per the MLC report of the injured/complainant, he sustained grievous injuries in the incident and a portion of his left ear was severed due to the sword blow inflicted by the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the deposition of the complainant/injured witness recorded before the trial Court. Though in his examination-in-chief, the complainant attempted to give a different version by stating that he sustained injuries due to falling from a motorcycle while travelling with the applicant, however, in his cross-examination, he categorically supported the prosecution case and specifically admitted that when he objected to the applicant selling the paddy for consuming liquor, the applicant became enraged, brought a sword and assaulted him with an intention to kill him and had he not bent down at the relevant time, the blow would have cut his throat resulting in his death. Thus, the testimony of the complainant/injured witness, when read as a whole, prima facie supports the prosecution case. This Court has further considered the memorandum statement of the applicant, seizure of the weapon effected at his instance, statements of prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence available on record, all of which prima facie indicate 7 the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence. Apart from this, the applicant is also having one previous criminal antecedent of the year 2022, which also cannot be ignored at this stage. Therefore, considering the seriousness of allegations, nature of injuries sustained by the injured, criminal antecedent of the applicant and the overall material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Baljor Singh, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 233/2025 registered at Police Station- Passan, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109 of BNS and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce 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 Kunal