1 2026:CGHC:25337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5185 of 2026 1 - Dwarika Sapre S/o Jhamman Sapre Aged About 18 Years R/o Newaspur, P.S. And District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, Mungeli District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title as taken from CIS) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 22.06.2026 1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No.358/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 117(2), 61(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296, 115(2) & 351(3) of BNS, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.12.2025, the complainant lodged a First Information Report at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, alleging that upon receiving information from one Gendlal Sonkar that the accused persons were harvesting crops from the complainant's agricultural land situated ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 at Village Newaspur, the complainant, along with his family members, proceeded to the spot and objected to the said act. It is alleged that, in response, the accused persons, namely Jhamman Sapre, Vimal Sapre, Dujram and the present applicant Dwarika, abused and assaulted the complainant and his family members. During the incident, Vimal Sapre allegedly assaulted Ajit Sonkar with a stick, Jhamman Sapre inflicted injuries upon Purnima Sonkar and Janak Sonkar with an iron axe, Dujram assaulted Rohit Sonkar with a stick and by fists, while the present applicant is alleged to have assaulted the complainant with a stick and by fists. As a result of the occurrence, several persons sustained injuries and Janak Sonkar subsequently succumbed to the injuries sustained during the incident while undergoing treatment. On the basis of the said report, an FIR came to be registered and, following the death of Janak Sonkar, a merg intimation bearing No. 78/2025 was also registered. The applicant was arrested on 13.12.2025 and has remained in judicial custody since then. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are total eight accused persons out of which one is juvenile. Further, the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that, as per the FIR itself, the only allegation against the applicant is that he assaulted the complainant with a stick and by hands and fists, causing simple injuries, whereas no specific allegation has been made against him regarding any assault upon the deceased Janakram Sonkar. 3 It is further submitted that the subsequent statements of the complainant contain material improvements and exaggerations, thereby creating doubt about the prosecution story. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is a young student aged about 18 years pursuing B.Sc. Third Semester and his continued detention would adversely affect his studies and future prospects. It is also pointed out that other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. He further submits that charges have already been framed by the trial Court, there are 30 witnesses and further he was also informed that today itself the matter was listed before the trial Court for recording of evidence. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Mungeli, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, he was arrested on 13.12.2025 and is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the present applicant are specific in nature and the weapon of offence, namely a stick (danda), has been seized from his possession during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the co-accused persons who have been granted bail stand on a different footing, as they were neither named in the FIR nor in the merg intimation, 4 whereas the present applicant has been specifically named and attributed an active role in the incident. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and the applicant's involvement in the offence, learned State counsel contends that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail and, therefore, prays for rejection of the application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place, the material collected during investigation and the specific role attributed to the applicant and taking into consideration that there are direct evidence against the applicant, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out at present. 7. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 8. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Saxena