1 2026:CGHC:15090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2927 of 2026 1 - Aakash Yadav @ Akku S/o Suresh Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Shukwari Bazar, Kundrapara, P.S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Vikram Jain @ Pappu S/o Kanhucharan Jain Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Shukwari Bazar, Kundrapara, P.S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gudhiyari, District – Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.04.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 384/2025, registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant has lodged report to the concerned Police Station with intend that on the date of the incident there was dispute in between the applicants and complainant with regard to previous enmity and the applicants have assaulted the injured person, by causing to receive injury simple in nature. On the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 basis of the said complaint, the crime was registered by the Police and the applicants were arrested. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that there are 10 criminal antecedents of the applicant No.1 out of which 7 are pending, and there are 2 criminal antecedents of the applicant No.2 out of which only one is pending. It is further submitted that the applicants are said to have assaulted the injured with a beer bottle on his abdomen, but so far as the applicant No.2 is concerned, the assault made by applicant No.2 only pertains to hands and fists, and it is the applicant No.1 who has assaulted the injured with beer bottle. It is further submitted that so far as the status of the trial is concerned, out of 20 prosecution witnesses only 2 witnesses have been examined by the trial Court and have turned hostile. The applicants are in jail since 17.08.2025 and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicants along with the co-accused are said to have assaulted the injured, and so far as the applicant No.2 is concerned, he has assaulted the injured with hands and fists but it is the applicant No.1 who has assaulted the injured with a beer bottle on his abdomen and caused him grievous injuries on his person, and further the fact that there are 10 criminal antecedents of applicant No.1 out of which 7 are still pending, and there are 2 criminal antecedents of the applicant No.2, out of which one is pending, therefore, they are not 3 entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and from the perusal of the case diary, it is prima facie evident that the applicants along with the co-accused are said to have assaulted the injured, but it is the applicant No.1 who has assaulted the injured with a beer bottle on his abdomen and caused him grievous injuries on his person, and further the fact that there are 10 criminal antecedents of applicant No.1 out of which 7 are still pending, for which no any plausible explanation has been given, he is a habitual offender and he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents. Moreover, though out of 20 prosecution witnesses only 2 witnesses have been examined by the trial Court and have turned hostile, the same cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant No.1 on bail as the same amounts to only tampering with the evidence, thus, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to grant regular bail to the applicant No. 1. 7. Accordingly, this bail application of applicant No.1 – Aakash Yadav @ Akku involved in Crime No. 384/2025, registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected at this stage. 4 8. So far as the allegation levelled against the applicant No.2 is concerned, the charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court, and it is evident that though the applicants are said to have assaulted the injured with a beer bottle on his abdomen, but so far as the applicant No.2 is concerned, the assault made by applicant No.2 only pertains to hands and fists, and he is in jail since 17.08.2025, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant No.2 is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Let applicant No.2 - Vikram Jain @ Pappu, involved in Crime No. 384/2025, registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 5 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. 10. 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 Rajshekhar