1 CGHC010214382026 2026:CGHC:29179 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5065 of 2026 Goutam Yadav Son Of Jageshwar Yadav Aged About 19 Years Resident Of Village- Negurdih, Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through-Station House Officer, Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant Along with MCRC No. 5417 of 2026 1 - Sanjay @ Bhuru S/o. Shri Tiharuram Kashyap, Aged About 27 Years R/o. Village Nengurdih Thana Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Tiharuram Kashyap S/o. Shri Ramlal Kashyap, Aged About 59 Years R/o. Village Nengurdih, Thana Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Sharad Kumar Kashyap S/o. Shri Mukut Ram Kashyap, Aged About 25 Years R/o. Village - Nengurdih, Thana Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 4 - Mahendra Kashyap S/o. Shri Pyarelal Kashyap, Aged About 25 Years R/o. Village Nengurdih, Thana Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Applicants Versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 For Applicants : Mr. Kunwar Sahu, Advocate Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. Since the above-mentioned two first bail applications arise out of same incident, same crime number and registered at same police station, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 82/2026, registered at Police Station : Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 191(2), 191(3) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.03.2026, the complainant Jagram Kashyap lodged a report at Police Station Nawagarh alleging that on 02.03.2026 at about 10:00 p.m., one Sammelal @ Nanu informed him that his son, Aman Kashyap, had been assaulted by the present applicants and other co-accused persons, due to which he was lying unconscious at the spot. Upon receiving the information, the complainant rushed to the place of occurrence and found his son in an unconscious condition. It is further alleged that while he was attempting to assist his son, the 3 aforesaid accused persons arrived there, abused him and assaulted him with iron rods, clubs and other weapons, causing injuries and rendering him unconscious. Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly fled from the spot. After regaining consciousness, the complainant informed his relatives, who took him for medical treatment. On the basis of the said report, a criminal case was registered against the applicants and other co- accused persons, and during the course of investigation, the applicants were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the present bail applications. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the incident in question arose out of a free fight between two rival groups, resulting in registration of cross cases against both sides. He points out that prior to the registration of the present crime, a counter FIR bearing Crime No. 81/2026 dated 02.03.2026 was registered at Police Station Nawagarh at the instance of injured Gautam Yadav, one of the present applicants, against Aman Kashyap and other members of the complainant party for offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 191(2) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the accused persons therein have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC Nos. 3918/2026 and 4576/2026 vide orders dated 29.04.2026 and 14.05.2026. It is further submitted that the complainant Jagram Kashyap is the father of Aman Kashyap, who is an accused in the aforesaid counter case, and 4 therefore the present FIR has been lodged as a retaliatory measure with a view to take revenge and pressurize the applicants. He further submits that the parties are known to each other and have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court without any coercion, threat or undue influence, and even affidavits to that effect have been placed on record. It is contended that no specific overt act causing grievous injury has been attributed to the present applicants and the medical evidence demonstrates that the injuries sustained by the complainant side are simple in nature. The MLC report of injured Jagram Kashyap discloses only simple injuries, namely lacerated and incised wounds, and does not indicate that any injury was dangerous to life or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; therefore, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 109 of the B.N.S. are not attracted. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicants have been in jail since 03.03.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion as the prosecution has cited about 15 witnesses and none of them has been examined so far. Therefore, they pray for grant of bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State vehemently opposes the bail applications and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present cases. She further submits that the allegations against the applicants are serious in nature and disclose their active participation in an unlawful assembly which allegedly assaulted the complainant and his son with iron rods, clubs and other deadly weapons. It is 5 contended that the statements of the injured witnesses and other prosecution witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence collected during investigation, prima facie establish the involvement of the applicants in the commission of the alleged offences. She further submits that the mere existence of a counter case or cross FIR does not dilute the gravity of the allegations in the present case and the rival versions of the incident are matters to be adjudicated during trial on the basis of evidence. Considering the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the presence of injured witnesses, and the possibility of the applicants influencing or intimidating material witnesses, no ground for grant of bail is made out. Therefore, it is prayed that the present bail applications be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the incident gave rise to cross FIRs/counter cases between the rival parties and that, in the counter case bearing Crime No. 81/2026 registered at the instance of injured Gautam Yadav, the accused persons from the complainant side have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.04.2026 and 14.05.2026. Further considering that the counter case was registered prior to the present FIR, thereby lending support to the applicants’ contention that the present prosecution may have been initiated as a retaliatory measure, the injuries sustained by the complainant side are stated to be simple in nature 6 as reflected from the medical evidence, no injury has been shown to be dangerous to life, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicants are in jail since 03.03.2026, the parties are stated to have amicably resolved their dispute and affidavits in support thereof have been placed on record, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion as none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail in theses cases. 8. Accordingly, the bail applications of the applicants are allowed. Let the Applicants – Goutam Yadav, Sanjay @ Bhuru, Tiharuram Kashyap, Sharad Kumar Kashyap and Mahendra Kashyap , involved in Crime No. 82/2026, registered at Police Station : Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 191(2), 191(3) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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. 7 (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 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 Rahul Dewangan