1 CGHC010243082026 2026:CGHC:28425 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6102 of 2026 Likeshwar Dewangan @ Bau S/o Suraj Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 22 Years R/o Behind Sparsh Hospital Contractor Colony, Road No. 25. Police Station Supela, Bhilai, Distt, Durg. C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station Supela., Distt. Durg, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.161/2026 registered at Police Station- Supela., District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1) of the BNS and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.10 11:12:17 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.01.2026 at about 9:45 p.m., the complainant, Rahul Sahu @ Yogesh Sahu, was sitting along with Umesh Pandey near Joshi Line, in front of Guddu Aata Chakki and a barber shop, when the present applicant allegedly arrived there. Owing to an old dispute relating to catering work, the applicant allegedly started teasing the complainant and, upon being asked not to do so, assaulted him with a knife, causing an injury on his abdomen. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly fled from the spot. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, the police registered the crime against the applicant and commenced investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the complainant had consumed liquor in a heavy quantity and initiated the dispute over an old catering-related monetary issue, due to which the incident occurred, and there was no intention on the part of the applicant to commit the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the complainant remained hospitalized for only five days and has since recovered completely. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant is a young man aged 22 years languishing in jail since 30.01.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant inflicted two knife blows on the abdomen of the complainant with the intention to cause his death, resulting in grievous injuries. It is contended that the medical records reveal that the complainant remained hospitalized from 30.01.2026 to 06.02.2026 and the MLC categorically records the injuries as grievous in nature. It is further submitted that the knife and an iron punch have been recovered from the applicant, the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and the applicant has criminal antecedents. Hence, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the specific allegation that the applicant inflicted two knife blows on the abdomen of the complainant with a sharp-edged weapon, the medical evidence showing that the injuries sustained by the complainant are grievous in nature and that he remained hospitalized from 30.01.2026 to 06.02.2026, the recovery of the weapon from the applicant, as well as his criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Likeshwar Dewangan @ Bau, involved in Crime No.161/2026 registered at 4 Police Station- Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1) of the BNS and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet