1 2026:CGHC:26572 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5596 of 2026 Dipak Yadav S/o- Bisauha Ram, Aged About 33 Years R/o- Ward No. 07, College Road, Rajhara, P.S. Rajhara, District-Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Rajhara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.59/2026, registered at Police Station- Rajhara, District-Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 126(2), 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 109(1) and 117(2) of B.N.S. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.03.2026, at about 9:00 p.m., injured/victim Hemant Netam and Councilor Virendra Sahu were returning home on a scooter after attending the marriage KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 ceremony of the son of Ramlabai in Ward No. 7, Rajhara. It is alleged that near the Teacher Colony Ground, the present applicant, along with co-accused Ajit Singh and Kailash Sahu, intercepted them and questioned Virendra Sahu as to why he was not resolving the problems of the ward. Thereafter, they allegedly abused him in obscene language referring to his mother and sister, threatened to kill him and assaulted him with hands, fists and bangles. It is further alleged that when the injured/victim ran towards Block No. 6 in search of help, the applicant along with co- accused Deepak Yadav and other co-accused persons dragged him onto the road and again assaulted him while extending threats to kill him. As a result of the said assault, Virendra Sahu sustained injuries on his nose, eyes and face. Accordingly, the present offences were registered against the applicant vide Crime No. 59/2026 for aforementioned offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is further submitted that co-accused namely, Kailash Sahu, has already been enlarged on bail and therefore, the case of the present applicant deserves to be considered on the ground of parity. He further submits that, as per the prosecution case, the applicant is alleged to have caused injury on the nose of the injured by means of an ornamental bracelet (chuda) and except the said bracelet, no other incriminating article has been seized from his possession. It is further submitted that as per the M.L.C. report, the injuries sustained by the injured are 3 simple in nature. He also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 11.03.2026 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant is specifically alleged to have assaulted the injured by means of an ornamental bracelet (chuda), which has also been recovered from his possession during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that though co-accused namely, Kailash Sahu, has been granted bail by this Court, his case stands on a different footing inasmuch as he is alleged to have assaulted the injured only by hands and fists, whereas the specific overt act of causing injury by means of a bracelet (chuda) has been attributed to the present applicant. He further submits that, as per the M.L.C. report of the injured, the injury sustained on his nose resulted in fracture of the nasal bone and the said injury has been opined to be grievous in nature. Therefore, considering the specific role attributed to the applicant, it is prayed that the present bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the specific allegation that the present applicant assaulted the injured by means of an ornamental bracelet (chuda), the recovery of the said bracelet 4 from his possession during the course of investigation and further considering the M.L.C. report of the injured, wherein the injury sustained on the nose resulting in fracture of the nasal bone has been opined to be grievous in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. So far as the plea of parity raised on behalf of the applicant is concerned, this Court is of the view that the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing from that of co-accused Kailash Sahu, who has already been enlarged on bail, inasmuch as the said co-accused is alleged to have assaulted the injured only by hands and fists, whereas a specific overt act of causing injury by means of a bracelet (chuda) has been attributed to the present applicant. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant namely Dipak Yadav, involved in Crime No.59/2026, registered at Police Station- Rajhara, District-Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 126(2), 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 109(1) and 117(2) of B.N.S., is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 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 0. Kunal