1 CGHC010190402026 2026:CGHC:28584 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4720 of 2026 Rahul Sahu S/o Devilal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Lawan P.S. Lawan Dist- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Lawan Dist- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... 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. 73/2026, registered at Police Station - Lawan, District – Baloda-Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 307, 333 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution’s story in brief, the complainant, namely Pooja Jaiswal, lodged a written complaint alleging that on 04.03.2026, at about 9:00–10:00 p.m., the accused persons, namely Mahendra Verma and ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.10 11:02:22 +0530 2 others, forcibly entered her house, abused her, brandished a knife, enquired about the whereabouts of her husband, and threatened to kill her. The present applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-accused. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 307, 296, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 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 any of the offences alleged against him. He submits that the applicant is neither named in the FIR nor mentioned in the initial complaint lodged by the complainant. His implication is based solely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused. It is well settled that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as substantive evidence; therefore, the prosecution's case against the applicant is extremely weak. He further submits that the learned trial Court has already granted bail to the co-accused, namely, Muniraj Verma, Mithun Verma, and Karuna Shankar @ Bholu Verma. Although the learned trial Court denied the applicant the benefit of parity on the ground that he allegedly wielded a knife, the medical records clearly reveal that the Ultrasound (USG) report is normal and that the injuries sustained by the complainant are merely superficial in nature. In such circumstances, the alleged role attributed to the applicant does not justify a harsher treatment than that accorded to the co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail. He also submits that no seizure has been made from the possession of the present applicant. The FIR merely states that "Mahendra Verma and his other companions forcibly entered the house and brandished a knife." There is no specific allegation by the 3 complainant that the present applicant, Rahul Sahu, wielded the knife, issued any threat, or committed any specific overt act. The applicant has been implicated only as a "companion" of the principal accused, without any distinct role being attributed to him. He further submits that the applicant has 10 criminal antecedents under the IPC, the Arms Act, and the Gambling Act. Out of these, 07 cases have already been disposed of, while only three cases are still pending trial. Explanations in this regard have also been furnished in paragraph 4(a) of the present bail application. He further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 18.03.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Accordingly, 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, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against 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 the fact that the applicant has 10 criminal antecedents under the IPC, the Arms Act, and the Gambling Act, out of which 07 cases have already been disposed of and only 03 cases are still pending trial, 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 18.03.2026. As the 4 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 – Rahul Sahu, involved in Crime No. 73/2026, registered at Police Station - Lawan, District – Baloda-Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 307, 333 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 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. (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 5 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