1 2026:CGHC:26323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5618 of 2026 Naresh Durga @ Nikku S/o Narottam Durga Aged About 24 Years R/o Durga Nagar Pandari Jagat Gali, P.S.- Devendra Nagar, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Devendra Nagar, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.06.2026 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. 325/2024 registered at Police Station – Devendra Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-B)(B) and 27(1) of the Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 09.10.2024, the complainant, being the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.06.30 11:04:39 +0530 2 father of the injured, lodged a complaint at the concerned police station stating that on 06.10.2024, at about 06:30-06:45 a.m., his son, Bunty Deep @ Bunny, after taking Rs. 20/- from his mother at their residence situated at Durga Nagar, Jagat Gali, proceeded towards Sahu Hotel for tea. It is alleged that when he reached in front of Jagat Gali, Durga Nagar, Pandri, Raipur, the present applicant/accused, namely Naresh Durga @ Nikku, along with co-accused Rohit Tandi, Naveen @ Prakash Soni, and Mohan Soni, who were already present there, upon seeing him, started abusing him in filthy language on account of previous enmity. When the injured objected to such abuses, the accused persons allegedly extended threats to kill him and thereafter assaulted him. It is further alleged that the co-accused persons assaulted him with fists and blows, while the present applicant, Naresh Durga, inflicted knife blows, as a result of which the injured sustained grievous injuries on his chest, abdomen, and back, and his intestines protruded. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered Crime No. 325/2024 and, after completion of the investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 109, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25(1- B)(B) and 27(1) of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is no specific overt act assigned to the present applicant. As per the prosecution story itself, the allegation of causing injuries by a knife is specifically attributed to the co-accused, whereas the present applicant has been roped in only on vague and general allegations of assault. He submits that the role attributed to the applicant is omnibus and not individualized. The Hon’ble Courts have consistently held that in cases involving general allegations 3 without specific attribution, continued detention is not justified. He further submits that the present applicant is not alleged to have used any deadly weapon. The alleged grievous injuries are attributed to the main accused and, therefore, the case of the present applicant stands on a different and lesser footing. He also submits that the implication of the applicant appears to be on account of previous enmity, and there is every likelihood of false implication due to exaggeration of facts by the complainant party. The other co-accused person, who is similarly situated and has been assigned the same role, has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, on the principle of parity, the applicant deserves the same relief, as the role attributed to him is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused. He submits that even the complainant (Bunty), in his statement, has not taken the name of the present applicant and has instead mentioned the name of some other person. He submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 11.10.2024, 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 opposed the bail application and submitted that the main allegation against the present applicant is that he was the principal assailant in the incident. It is alleged that, on account of previous enmity, the applicant, along with the co-accused persons, assaulted the injured. While the co-accused allegedly assaulted the injured with fists and blows, the present applicant inflicted multiple knife blows on the chest, abdomen, and back of the injured, causing grievous injuries, due to which the intestines of the injured protruded. She further submitted that the injuries sustained by the victim were life- threatening in nature, clearly demonstrating the applicant's intention to cause death. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence and 4 the specific role attributed to the present applicant, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the present applicant, and the material available on record, it is alleged that the present applicant was the principal assailant who inflicted multiple knife blows on the chest, abdomen, and back of the injured, resulting in grievous and life-threatening injuries, including the protrusion of the intestines. The manner in which the assault is alleged to have been committed prima facie reflects the seriousness of the offence and the applicant's active involvement in the commission of the crime. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for the grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly, the first bail application of the applicant – Naresh Durga @ Nikku, involved in Crime No. 325/2024 registered at Police Station – Devendra Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-B)(B) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, is rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 5 9. 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