1 2026:CGHC:24426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5155 of 2026 1 - Rahul Yadav S/o- Shri Ramu Yadav, Aged About 20 Years R/o- Shyam Nagar, Police Station Telibandha, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Vaibhav Yadav, S/o- Shri Johan Lal Yadav, Aged About 20 Years R/o- Shyam Nagar, Police Station Telibandha, Tahsil And -District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 667/2025 registered at Police Station Telibandha, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109 r/w Section 3(5) VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.06.18 12:00:24 +0530 2 and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, & under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.10.2025, the police of Police Station Telibandha received information that the accused, along with co-accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained and assaulted the complainant/injured, namely Gopal Nirmalkar. It is alleged that the present accused was armed with a sharp-edged weapon (knife) and inflicted injuries upon the victim with the intention to cause his death. On the basis of the said incident, an F.I.R. was registered, and hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and have no role whatsoever in the commission of the alleged offence. The applicants have been arraigned merely on account of their casual friendship and association with the main co-accused, Jai Netam, and were only accompanying him without any prior knowledge, common intention, or participation in the alleged incident. No specific overt act has been attributed to either of the applicants in the FIR, and the complainant failed to mention their names, physical descriptions, or identifying features at the earliest opportunity, rendering their implication doubtful and based solely on vague and omnibus allegations. Furthermore, the investigating agency did not conduct any Test Identification Parade (TIP) to establish the identity or presence of the applicants, thereby creating a serious lacuna in the prosecution case. The applicants are also entitled to the benefit of parity as a similarly situated co-accused, Omprakash Netam, has already been enlarged on regular bail by the Hon'ble High Court of 3 Chhattisgarh vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 3297 of 2026. The prosecution case has further been weakened during trial, as PW-1 Sanjiv Khudshah (Patwari), in his cross-examination, admitted that no statutory notice was issued to the complainant, no verification of the alleged place of occurrence was conducted from local shopkeepers, and that the complainant was brought to the spot by the police, thereby casting serious doubt on the fairness of the investigation and the authenticity of the spot map. No sharp-edged weapon, knife, or any incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or at the instance of the applicants. Even according to the prosecution's own medical evidence, the injuries sustained by the victim are not on vital parts of the body and are not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court; therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required. The applicants are young boys aged about 20 years, belonging to poor and marginalized families, and prior to their arrest were working as salesmen in a clothing shop at Pandri, Raipur, providing financial support to their families. Their continued incarceration would seriously prejudice their future prospects and cause undue hardship to their families. The applicants are permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and they are ready and willing to furnish adequate sureties and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector opposed the bail application of the present 4 applicants and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicants assaulted injured resulting in grievous injuries. Therefore, the present applicants are not entitled to be granted 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, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicants, the fact that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature, and further considering that the co-accused, namely Omprakash Netam, has already been granted bail vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 3297 of 2026, this Court finds that the present applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. Further, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicants have remained in jail since 27.10.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. In these circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicants - Rahul Yadav & Vaibhav Yadav, involved in Crime No. 667/2025 registered at Police Station Telibandha, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109 r/w Section 3(5) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, & under Sections 25 and 5 27 of the Arms Act, 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 applicants 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 court shall initiate proceedings against him, 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 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 them in accordance with law. 9. 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 vaibhav