1 2026:CGHC:27320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3719 of 2026 Karan Sahu S/o- Tikaram Sahu, Aged About 20 Years R/o- Ayodhya Nagar, New Changorabhata, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. D.D. Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Deepa Jha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.07.2026 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.487/2025 registered at Police Station – D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 296 & 3(5) of the BNS 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 20.10.2025, an FIR was lodged by the Complainant Subhash Dewangan in Police Station D.D. Nagar, VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.03 12:52:47 +0530 2 District-Raipur (C.G.) that on the night of 19.10.25 at about 11:42 PM, he received a call from friend of his younger brother named Pintu Patwa, who told him that his younger brother Montu Dewangan had a fight with Rahul Dewangan & his friends near Almirah Factory, Changorabhata, Raipur in which Rahul Dewangan had severely injured his youngerbrother with knife. On hearing this, the complainant immediately reached on spot where he saw his younger brother Montu Dewangan been severely injured & had sharp bruises & cuts over his left eye, right side of ear, cheeks & his back by some sharp-edged weapon. When complainant inquired about this from his injured younger brother, the victim informed him that on the night of 19.10.25 at about 7 pm, he got engaged in quarrel with a person named Rahul Dewangan which on that time, got sorted out. However, on the very same night at about 11:40 PM, when the victim was having conversation with his friend Pintu Patwa near Almirah Factory, Changorabhata Raipur, accused Rahul Dewangan along with his friend Rohit Vishwakarma, Chinki Patnayak @ Chiku & other persons on the ground of some old rivalry, started to utter obscene abuses to victim & the accused Rahul Dewangan with intent to kill the victim, took out his knife & gave several blows of it on victim which caused severe cuts & bruises over the victim's left eye, right ear, right side of the cheek & right side of his back as well as the companion of accused Rahul Dewangan also beaten the victim with fists & kicks. After admitting his injured brother i.e. victim in AIIMS Hospital Raipur, the complainant had lodged an FIR against the accused persons. Based on the complaint of the complainant, the police had lodged an FIR against the accused persons u/s 109(1), 296 & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the main accused, Rahul Dewangan, and the deceased/victim were relatives residing in the same locality and had frequent quarrels with each other. On the date of the incident, the applicant was called to the spot by the main accused on the pretext of some urgent work. It is submitted that before the applicant could understand the situation, the main accused suddenly assaulted the victim with a knife, whereupon the applicant got frightened and immediately fled from the spot without participating in the incident. Thereafter, the applicant informed his parents about the occurrence, who in turn informed the concerned police station. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had no enmity with the victim, no overt act has been attributed to him, and even according to the prosecution witnesses, he had run away from the spot without participating in the assault. It is also submitted that the applicant voluntarily surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 13.03.2026 and has remained in judicial custody since then. The applicant is a young student with no criminal antecedents, the investigation is complete, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and his continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment. It is lastly submitted that 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 to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that 4 there is sufficient material available in the case diary prima facie indicating the involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted that the applicant, along with the co- accused persons, assaulted the victim pursuant to their common intention, while the main accused inflicted multiple knife blows causing grievous injuries. The statements of the victim and other prosecution witnesses support the prosecution case. It is further submitted that considering the serious nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. Accordingly, 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. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the applicant has no previous antecedent and is not alleged to have assaulted the injured, as the injury was sustained at the instance of the co-accused, namely Montu Dewangan and Rahul Dewangan, and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.03.2026, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court finds that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the said co-accused, Montu Dewangan and Rahul Dewangan. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 5 7. Let applicant, Karan Sahu, involved in Crime No.487/2025 registered at Police Station – D.D. Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 296 & 3(5) of the BNS 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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. (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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav