1 2026:CGHC:24076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3303 of 2026 Vishakha W/o Umesh Kalar Aged About 21 Years Old R/o Atal Awas Pendri, District- Rajnangaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali District- Rajnangaon (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.06.2026 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. 141/2026 registered at Police Station- Kotwali District- Rajnangaon, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 326(a), 109(1), 119(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, upon receiving information regarding the incident, the police reached the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Government Medical College Hospital and conducted the preliminary inquiry. During investigation, it was alleged that the accused persons, namely Anand Bihari, Simran Khan and Vishakha, had abused the complainant Sanjay Mandavi and his family members and threatened them with dire consequences for refusing to provide money for consumption of liquor. It is further alleged that thereafter the accused persons assaulted the complainant and his family members with sticks and a fibre cane, causing injuries to them. During the course of investigation, witness Smt. Laxmi Yavrade also stated that the accused persons had set fire to the complainant’s hut and damaged the articles kept therein. Accordingly, spot panchnama and other necessary proceedings were carried out in the presence of witnesses, and subsequently Section 326(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was added to the case. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further submitted that no specific overt act has been attributed to the applicant and the allegations levelled against him are general and omnibus in nature without any clear attribution of individual role. He also submits that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not prima facie made out against the applicant and the alleged incident appears to have occurred on the spur of the moment without any premeditation. It is also submitted that the investigation is substantially complete, the material evidence has already been collected, statements of witnesses have been recorded and the 3 alleged weapons have been seized, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. He further submits that the applicant is not a threat to society and is not in a position to influence or tamper with the prosecution witnesses or hamper the trial. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and State of Kerala v. Raneef, it is contended that while considering a bail application, the Court is required to maintain a balance between societal interest and personal liberty and that every accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. He further submits that the present applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, she is in jail since 07.03.2026, 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 opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the present applicant is involved in a serious and violent incident wherein the complainant party was assaulted by the accused persons with sticks and a fibre cane, resulting in grievous as well as multiple injuries to as many as five persons. It is submitted that injured Karan Bai Yavrade sustained fractures in the humerus and ulna bones of her arm, Sanjay Mandavi suffered multiple lacerated wounds on the head, face and below the lip, Laxmi Yavrade sustained a head injury, Rama Yavrade suffered bleeding from the 4 ENT region along with multiple lacerated wounds on the head, and Ankush Yavrade also sustained bleeding from the ENT region. It is further submitted that the nature, number and severity of injuries clearly demonstrate the gravity of the offence and the active participation of the accused persons in the commission of the crime. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the manner in which the offence was committed, and the possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses if released on bail, she 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 and the material available on record, though the applicant appears to have participated in the alleged incident and the injured persons have sustained injuries, including grievous injuries, but also considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 07.03.2026, she has no previous criminal antecedents and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, 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 - Vishakha, involved in Crime No. 141/2026 registered at 5 Police Station- Kotwali District- Rajnangaon, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 326(a), 109(1), 119(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 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 sufficient 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, 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the 6 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 sufficient 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. 8. Office 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