1 2026:CGHC:24440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5253 of 2026 Heena Nishad W/o Mithalesh Nishad Aged About 23 Years R/o Shaktipara, Urkura, P.S. Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2026 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. 138/2026 registered at Police Station – Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) offence under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant submitted a written complaint before the concerned Police Station alleging that, on the date of the incident, a dispute arose between the parties on account of previous enmity. Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly assaulted ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.06.18 17:59:16 +0530 2 the injured person with a knife, as a result of which the injured sustained simple injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered an offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, in Crime No. 138/2026 against the present applicant and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that all the parties are residents of the same locality and there was a minor dispute between them on account of previous enmity. However, the applicant neither assaulted the injured person nor committed any of the offences alleged by the prosecution. He also submits that the injured person sustained only simple injuries in the alleged incident and did not suffer any grievous injury. The applicant has been implicated as an accused merely on the basis of suspicion and false and baseless allegations. The essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act are not attracted against the present applicant on the basis of the prosecution story itself. He submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and she is in jail since 28.02.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. She further submits that the co- accused, namely Arvind Sahu, assaulted the injured with a knife, causing grievous injuries. So far as the present applicant is concerned, the allegation against her is that she was accompanying the co-accused, 3 Arvind Sahu, at the time of the incident. Therefore, according to the learned State Counsel, the present applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the main allegation is against the co-accused, namely Arvind Sahu, who allegedly assaulted the injured with a knife, causing grievous injuries. So far as the present applicant is concerned, her case is distinguishable from that of the co- accused Arvind Sahu, as the only allegation against her is that she was accompanying the co-accused at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 28.02.2026. Considering that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Heena Nishad, involved in Crime No. 138/2026 registered at Police Station – Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) offence under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on furnishing 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 4 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 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek