1 2026:CGHC:27411 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5669 of 2026 1 - Rakesh Verma S/o Radheshyam Verma Aged About 23 Years Village- Tedhi, Police Station Thankhamhariya Distt- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Narottam Verma S/o Radheshyam Verma Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Tedhi Police Station Thankhamhariya Distt- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- SHO Police Station Thankhamhariya, District – Bemetara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 03.07.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 13/2026, registered at Police Station- Thankhamhariya, District – Bemetara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351, 118(1) and 118(2) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 18.01.2026, the complainant/victim Omkar Verma lodged an FIR against the present applicants alleging that on 17.01.2026, a cow belonging to his uncle Lekhram had entered into the field of Radheshay, upon which Radhe Verma, Rohini Verma and the present applicants objected and asked them to keep their cattle properly tied, which issue was subsequently pacified at that time. It is further alleged that on the next day, i.e., RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 18.01.2026 at about 05:00 PM, when the complainant was returning to his house, near the badi of Kanhaiya Verma, the present applicants accosted him and started abusing him, and accused Narrotam Verma allegedly caught hold of his hands while accused Rakesh Verma assaulted him with a sharp edged object, causing injuries on his left hand, back, waist and near the ribs, thereafter, the applicant was arrested in connection with the said incident. Hence, this application. 3. First bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2872/2026, on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present case is one wherein the applicants have categorically taken the plea of right of private defence. Elaborating the said submission, she submits that in fact the complainant party had initially come to the agricultural field of the applicants and it was the complainant side which first started assaulting the applicants as well as their mother, namely, Rohni Bai Verma, by means of bamboo sticks. She would further submit that in the course of the said incident, applicant No.1 Rakesh Verma sustained injuries, though the same have been opined to be simple in nature, including pain, swelling and abrasion, but the other injured persons from the side of the applicants, namely, their mother Rohni Bai Verma and applicant No.2 Narottam Verma, sustained multiple injuries on their persons. Learned counsel submits that as per the X-ray reports of Rohni Bai Verma and applicant No.2 Narottam Verma, fracture of ulna bone has been found, which clearly indicates that the applicants’ side had also suffered serious injuries in the course of the 3 incident. It is thus contended that the prosecution has not presented the true genesis of the occurrence and has suppressed the manner in which the incident had actually taken place. On the strength of the injuries sustained by the applicants’ side and the specific plea that the complainant party was the aggressor and had initiated the assault, and the applicants in exercising the right of private defence assaulted the injured Omkar Verma. Learned counsel submits that the applicants are entitled to the benefit of bail. Accordingly, she prays that the applicants be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail applications and submits that the present applicants are the main assailants who caused serious injuries to the complainant/injured, namely, Omkar Verma, by means of a screw driver. Drawing attention of this Court to the medical documents available on record, learned State counsel submits that as per the MLC report of the complainant/injured, he sustained as many as four stab wounds on his person, which were caused by a pointed object, and the nature of the injuries sustained by him has been opined to be grievous and dangerous to life. It is further submitted that the victim was brutally assaulted and, as per the MLC report, he sustained four stab wounds inflicted on vital parts of the body, including the left side of the abdomen/back region near the kidney, the left side of the chest, and the waist/rib area. The medical report further reveals serious internal injuries, including left renal laceration with left posterior perirenal hematoma (Grade II trauma), left- sided pneumothorax and hemothorax with left chest wall surgical emphysema, along with spinal injury in the form of Grade I 4 anterolisthesis of L5 over S1 with bilateral pars defect at L5, clearly indicating the force and severity of the attack. It is further submitted that the manner in which the assault has been committed and the weapon used by the applicants clearly distinguish the injuries suffered by the complainant side from those allegedly sustained by the applicants’ side. Learned State counsel would submit that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the complainant party was carrying wooden sticks, the same cannot be equated with the weapon used by the present applicants, inasmuch as a screw driver, being a pointed object, was used in the assault and the same resulted in multiple stab injuries to the complainant/injured. It is thus contended that the injuries sustained by the complainant are of a serious nature and the applicants do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Hence, he prays that the bail applications filed by the applicants be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the first bail application of the present applicants has already been rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 01.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.2872/2026, further considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants that they have acted in exercise of right of private defence on the ground that the complainant party had initially approached the field of the applicants and assaulted them and their mother Rohni Bai Verma by bamboo sticks, and that applicant No.1 Rakesh Verma, applicant No.2 Narottam Verma and their mother Rohni Bai Verma have also sustained injuries, and as per the X-ray report, fracture of ulna bone 5 has been found to have been caused to Rohni Bai Verma and applicant No.2 Narottam Verma, but at the same time, on perusal of the case diary, particularly the MLC report of the complainant/injured Omkar Verma, it appears that the injured has sustained as many as four stab wounds on his person, which were caused by a pointed object i.e. a screw driver, moreover, the victim was brutally assaulted and, as per the MLC report, he sustained four stab wounds inflicted on vital parts of the body, including the left side of the abdomen/back region near the kidney, the left side of the chest, and the waist/rib area. The medical report further reveals serious internal injuries, including left renal laceration with left posterior perirenal hematoma (Grade II trauma), left-sided pneumothorax and hemothorax with left chest wall surgical emphysema, along with spinal injury in the form of Grade I anterolisthesis of L5 over S1 with bilateral pars defect at L5, clearly indicating the force and severity of the attack, and the said injuries have been opined to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life; and further taking into consideration the nature of weapon allegedly used by the applicants, inasmuch as the complainant side is stated to have been armed with wooden sticks, whereas the present applicants are alleged to have assaulted the injured by means of a screw driver, which is a pointed and dangerous weapon, this Court is of the considered opinion that, at this stage, no case for grant of bail is made out. Even if the plea of private defence and the injuries sustained by the applicants’ side are taken note of, the same by itself does not persuade this Court to enlarge the applicants on bail, particularly when the injured on the complainant side has sustained multiple grievous stab injuries which are dangerous to life. In such circumstances, this 6 Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicants. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of applicants – Rakesh Verma and Narottam Verma, involved in Crime No. 13/2026, registered at Police Station- Thankhamhariya, District – Bemetara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351, 118(1) and 118(2) of the BNS, is rejected at this stage. 9. Needless to say that the learned trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 10. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar