1 2026:CGHC:23491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4912 of 2026 1. Krishna @ Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Vishvanath Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Semra, Police Station Sihava, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Binda Bai Sahu W/o Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Semra, Police Station Sihava, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Sihava, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 26.05.2026 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.05.26 17:12:39 +0530 2 Crime No. 31/2026 registered at Police Station Sihava, District Dhamtari (C.G.) offence under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.04.2026, the complainant, Mukesh Kumar Sahu, lodged a report alleging that due to a land and money dispute, on 13.02.2026, his elder brother, namely Krishna Kumar, and sister-in-law, namely Binda Sahu, assaulted the complainant’s son, namely Tamradhwaj Sahu, with the intention to commit murder and caused injuries to his head as well as neck. However, considering the fact that the dispute was between family members, no report was initially lodged. After receiving medical treatment, the injured took painkillers, but when the pain increased, he was admitted to V.Y. Hospital, where he underwent surgery on 06.03.2026 and thereafter underwent a second operation on 10.03.2026. Subsequently, the complainant implicated the applicants by alleging that, about two months earlier, the applicants had assaulted his son, as a result of which he sustained injuries dangerous to life and suffered a paralysis attack. Accordingly, the offence has been registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are the uncle and aunt of the injured, namely, Tamradhwaj Sahu. It is submitted that the complaint was lodged by the father of the injured, namely, Mukesh Sahu, alleging that on 13.02.2026 at about 8:30 PM, at the residence of the injured, the applicants 3 assaulted the injured, pursuant to which he was admitted to the hospital on 02.03.2026 complaining of headache and weakness. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the report dated 09.04.2026 was lodged by the complainant alleging that the incident had occurred on account of a land and family dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that although the injured was admitted to the hospital on 02.03.2026 and underwent surgery on 10.03.2026, no intimation or allegation regarding assault by the present applicants was made at that time. However, subsequently, on 09.04.2026, the FIR came to be registered alleging that the medical injuries sustained by the injured were on account of assault committed by the applicants. It is lastly submitted that there exists a family dispute between the parties, the applicants are in custody since 03.05.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicants are named in the FIR and are alleged to have assaulted the injured with the intention to commit murder, causing grievous injuries to his head and neck, which later required two surgeries and resulted in paralysis. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, he submits that the applicants are not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and 4 perused the case diary. 6. Considering the totality of the circumstances and particularly the fact that although the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 13.02.2026, when the injured was admitted to the hospital on 02.03.2026 and subsequently underwent surgery on 10.03.2026, no intimation was given to the police alleging the said incident, and only thereafter, on 09.04.2026, the FIR came to be lodged alleging assault by the present applicants, who are close relatives of the complainant party, there appears to be considerable delay in lodging the FIR. Further, the applicants are languishing in jail since 03.05.2026. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the application. 7. Let the Applicants – Krishna @ Krishna Kumar Sahu and Smt. Binda Bai Sahu involved in Crime No. 31/2026 registered at Police Station- Sihava, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) offence under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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. 5 (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Manpreet