1 CGHC010224922026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5680 of 2026 Bhuneshwar Nishad @ Bhunu S/o Nehru Nishad Aged About 19 Years R/o Rameshwar Nagar, Bhanpuri, Thana Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh By P.S. Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh .. Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G.A Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 08/07/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this 1st bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No.435/2025, registered at Police Station – Khamtarai, District- Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 118(1), 115(2), 331(6), 109(2), 118(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. In this case there are total 3 accused persons. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Chandan Manjhi lodged a report to the concerned police station Khamtarai alleging that on 13.05.2025 at about 8.30 p.m., when his brother Kundan Manjhi and his friends were sitting near Bandhava Pond, the applicant along with two juveniles came there and on account of old enmity, they started abusing complainant’s brother Kundan in filthy language citing his mother and sister and further chased him with a sharp object. Victim Kundan Manjhi ran-away and entered into the house of one Deepak Verma. Then all the three accused forcibly entered Deepak Verma’s house and assaulted Kundan with sharp edged object, due to which, the victim 2 suffered injuries on his back, arms, ribs and other parts of his body. The accused further threatened to kill him. Deepak Verma and others admitted the injured in Medical College Hospital, Raipur. On such report, the crime was registered and the applicant was taken into custody on 15.05.2025. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The main accused are juveniles who committed the crime. He further submits that the victim Kundan is a history-sheeter. Furthermore, eyewitness of the case Deepak as well as seizure witnesses have been turned hostile. The Applicant has been in custody since 15.05.2025. Out of 16 prosecution witnesses, only 10 have been examined till date, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion. In view of the above, it is prayed that the Applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that this is a case based on direct evidence against the applicant. Further, there is a named FIR against him and CCTV footage of the incident is also available against the applicant. A knife has also been seized from the possession of the applicant. The bail application of one of the juveniles has already been rejected by this Court. Therefore, considering the gravity and nature of the offence, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 8. However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, the concerned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge