1 2026:CGHC:24722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5332 of 2026 • Tikeshwar Nishad S/o Shri Avadh Ram Nishad Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Dhaneli, Sheetla Para, Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.06.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 178/2026, registered at Police Station – Khamtarai Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 309(6), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that on 23.03.2026 at about 11:05 VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.06.19 19:46:19 +0530 2 PM, near Sher-e-Punjab Dhaba, Rawabhata, Raipur, the complainant was wrongfully intercepted by two individuals who allegedly hurled verbal abuses, issued threats to life, and assaulted him with a knife on his left rib cage and abdomen before fleeing with his Motorola mobile device valued at approximately ₹8,000. Following localized suspicion, the local police apprehended the Applicant on 24.03.2026, recording an alleged custody confession under Section 23(2) of the BSA, and claimed the discovery of two knives along with the mobile phone entirely from the single possession of the Applicant. The Applicant has been languishing in continuous judicial custody since 24.03.2026. The investigation stands completed with the filing of the charge-sheet. Therefore, this bail application is being presented before the Hon'ble Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that examination of the Medical Examination Report reveals that all injuries sustained by the complainant have been opined to be simple in nature and that the complainant was found unfit to perform his routine work for only one day. It is submitted that had the applicant inflicted multiple forceful knife blows on vital parts of the body, as alleged in the FIR, the injuries would have been of a much more serious nature. It is further submitted that the FIR itself discloses that the assailants were unknown persons to the complainant; however, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted during investigation. In the absence of a TIP, the subsequent identification of the applicant while in police custody 3 loses significant evidentiary value. Learned counsel also submits that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed on 24.03.2026 before the competent Court. Therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that there are specific allegations against the applicant regarding assault and robbery. She contends that the weapons and other incriminating articles were recovered during investigation and that sufficient material has been collected to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the offences alleged are serious in nature and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, the case diary material, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the injuries sustained by the complainant have been opined to be simple in nature and the medical report indicates that the victim remained unfit for his routine work for only one day, further there was no Test Identification Parade was conducted despite the FIR indicating that the assailants were unknown persons. The investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before 4 the competent Court and applicant is in jail since 24.03.2026, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. 7. Let applicant, Tikeshwar Nishad, involved in Crime No.178/2026, registered at Police Station – Khamtarai Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 309(6), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 25, 27 of 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 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. 5 (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. 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 Vaishali