1 2026:CGHC:24398 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5106 of 2026 Jai Netam S/o Late Shri Ramesh Netam Aged About 20 Years R/o Mahavir Nagar, Back Of Gupta Building Golden Tower P. S. New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : 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 applicant who has 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) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, & under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.06.18 12:00:22 +0530 2 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 applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant. The complainant, Gopal Nirmalkar, used to regularly demand money from the applicant and extort money for the consumption of alcohol. The applicant, a poor 20-year-old boy earning his livelihood by ironing clothes near a nala, refused to accede to such unlawful demands, which led to animosity and an altercation between them. During the alleged incident, a scuffle ensued and, in the course of the push and pull, both the applicant and the complainant accidentally fell into the nearby drain, as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries. The injuries were not intentionally inflicted by the applicant through any sharp-edged weapon. 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 independent verification of the spot was conducted from local shopkeepers, and that the complainant was brought to the spot by the police, thereby rendering the spot map and investigation doubtful and unreliable. Even as per the prosecution's own medical 3 evidence, the injuries sustained by the complainant are not on vital parts of the body and are not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, making the stringent penal provisions invoked against the applicant unsustainable. Furthermore, the co-accused Omprakash Netam has already been enlarged on regular bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 3297 of 2026, and therefore the applicant is also entitled to the benefit of parity. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed; thus, no further custodial interrogation is required. The applicant is a young boy of 20 years, belonging to a poor and marginalized family, and after the demise of his father, he is the sole earning member supporting his widowed mother. His continued incarceration would cause irreparable prejudice to his future and family. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and he is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant along with co- accused persons, committed a serious offence in furtherance of their common intention and the accused was armed with a sharp-edged weapon (knife), by which he inflicted injuries on the complainant with an intention to cause his death. Considering the gravity of the offence 4 and the manner in which it was committed, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 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 applicant, 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 applicant has remained in judicial custody 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 applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant - Jai Netam, 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 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:- 5 (i) The applicant 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 applicant 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 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 him 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