1 CGHC010163582026 2026:CGHC:28230 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3818 of 2026 Yuvraj Banjara S/o Shri Kartik Banjara Aged About 27 Years R/o Alola Thana - Kapu Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kapu District- Raigarh (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smita Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2026 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. 60/2026 registered at Police Station – Kapu District - Raigarh (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.03.2026, the complainant Padman Banjara lodged a written report at Outpost-Kapu against the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.08 18:29:27 +0530 2 accused Yuvraj Banjara that on 27.03.2026 at about 03:30 p.m., the accused, who is a resident of the same village, chased the complainant with a sword with an intention to kill him. It is further alleged that the complainant, in order to save himself, ran into the house of his mother-in-law Chainbai and closed the door, thereafter the complainant's maternal uncle Bhanu Banjara snatched the sword from the possession of the accused and that the applicant used to threaten the complainant in relation to a dispute regarding roadside land. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 60/2026 has been registered at Outpost - Kapu against the accused under Sections 296, 351(3) of B.N.S. and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act . 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged against him. It is further submitted that the complainant himself has appeared before the learned trial Court and filed a written no-objection along with an affidavit stating that the incident occurred due to a minor dispute. It is contended that the alleged occurrence arose out of a trivial dispute regarding roadside land, thereby giving the matter a civil flavour. Learned counsel further submits that no injury was caused to the complainant in the alleged incident, which belies the allegation of intention to kill and renders the prosecution case doubtful, and that the investigating agency has failed to collect any cogent and reliable evidence against the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is a young person, the offences alleged against him are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life and are triable by the Magistrate, and therefore his continued incarceration is unwarranted. 3 It is further submitted that the applicant is a labourer and the sole breadwinner of his family, and his prolonged detention would cause irreparable hardship to his dependent family members. Learned counsel lastly submits 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 witnesses, and he is ready and willing to furnish adequate bail bonds and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting him bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 30.03.2026, and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Yuvraj Banjara, involved in Crime No. 60/2026 registered at Police Station – Kapu District - Raigarh (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on his 4 furnishing personal bond with two local 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 she 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 her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her in accordance with law. 8. 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 Vaibhav