1 CGHC010191172026 2026:CGHC:28585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4677 of 2026 Mahendra Verma S/o Mayaram Verma Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bagbuda, P.S. Lawan, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Lawan, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 72/2026, registered at Police Station - Lawan, District – Baloda-Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution’s story in brief, the complainant, namely Sonu Jaiswal, lodged a written complaint dated 05.03.2026 alleging that on 04.03.2026, at around 8:30 p.m., while he was returning from his uncle’s house, the present applicant, along with Rahul Sahu and others, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.10 11:02:23 +0530 2 intercepted him and enquired about the whereabouts of one Purendra Jaiswal. When the complainant replied that he did not know, the accused persons allegedly started abusing him. When he objected to their conduct, all of them jointly assaulted him with their hands and fists. It is further alleged that the present applicant, with the intention of causing his death, inflicted a knife blow on his stomach. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered against the applicant under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, vide Crime No. 72/2026, at Police Station Lawan, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the offences alleged against him. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of the knife from the applicant is highly suspicious, lacks independent corroboration, and has been falsely fabricated by the investigating agency with a view to implicate the applicant as the principal aggressor. He also submits that the rejection order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned trial Court in Bail Application No. 170/2026 filed by co-accused Rahul Sahu clearly records the prosecution's case that Rahul Sahu inflicted the fatal knife blow on the stomach of the complainant, Sonu Jaiswal. However, in the rejection order dated 27.03.2026 passed in the present applicant's Bail Application No. 164/2026, the very same Court recorded that the present applicant, Mahendra Verma, inflicted the fatal knife blow on the complainant's stomach and that the knife was seized from his possession. Thus, the prosecution's version is inherently contradictory and wholly unreliable. The prosecution is attempting to attribute the same 3 singular knife injury to two different accused persons simultaneously in order to oppose the grant of bail to both of them. Such contradictory stands taken by the prosecution seriously undermine the prima facie credibility of the FIR as well as the alleged recovery of the weapon from the present applicant. He further submits that the MLC and the Ultrasound (USG) report clearly state that the "Sonography of Abdomen & Pelvis is Normal" and that no internal injury was detected. The alleged injury is superficial in nature and is neither grievous nor life-threatening. He also submits that the applicant has three criminal antecedents under the IPC, the SC/ST Act, the NDPS Act, and the Arms Act. In one of the cases, the applicant has already been acquitted, while the remaining two cases are still pending. Explanations in this regard have also been furnished in paragraph 4(a) of the present bail application. He submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 05.03.2026 and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant, along with the other co-accused persons, assaulted the injured with a knife, as a result of which the injured sustained grievous injuries. He further submits that, in view of the criminal antecedents of the applicant, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 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, and upon perusal of the MLC and query reports of the injured, it appears that although stab injuries were found, no internal 4 injuries were detected. Further, the applicant has three criminal antecedents under the IPC, the SC/ST Act, the NDPS Act, and the Arms Act. In one of the cases, the applicant has already been acquitted, while the remaining two cases are still pending. Explanations in this regard have also been furnished in paragraph 4(a) of the present bail application. Moreover, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 05.03.2026. As the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in the present case. 7. Let the applicant – Mahendra Verma, involved in Crime No. 72/2026, registered at Police Station - Lawan, District – Baloda-Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (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 his, 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek