1 CGHC010200362026 2026:CGHC:29058 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4743 of 2026 Raju @ Rajendra Devangan S/o Kishan Lal Devangan Aged About 46 Years At Shiv Nagar, New Changorabhata, P.S. D.D. Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. D D Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/07/2026 1. This is the second 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. 598/2025 registered at Police Station D D Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 109(1), 238(b), 118(2), 3(5) of BNS. 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.12.2025, the complainant, Neha Dewangan, lodged an FIR alleging that her husband, Jeevan Dewangan, and his friend, Piyush Soni, had gone near Sheetla Mandir, Changorabhatha, to arrange a battery for an e- rickshaw. There, due to an old dispute relating to a property partition, the applicant Rajoo alias Rajendra Dewangan and co-accused Subhash Dewangan allegedly abused Jeevan in filthy language and, upon his objection, assaulted him with a knife with the intention of killing him. When Piyush Soni intervened, he was also allegedly attacked with the knife and sustained injuries. Jeevan suffered injuries on his neck, abdomen, right hand, and both legs, while Piyush sustained an injury to his abdomen. Both accused also allegedly threatened to kill them. During investigation, the statements of the injured witnesses and other witnesses were recorded, and the medical documents relating to the injuries were collected. The memorandum statement of co-accused Subhash Dewangan was also recorded, wherein he allegedly admitted that he, along with his father Rajoo alias Rajendra Dewangan, assaulted Jeevan with a knife over the property dispute and also injured Piyush when he intervened. On the basis of the material collected during investigation, the prosecution alleges the involvement of the applicant in the offence of attempt to murder committed in furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail 3 application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh, therefore, the applicant has preferred present second bail application application on the ground the injured did not name the applicant either in the requisition for medical examination (MLC) or in his initial police statement. Moreover, the FIR has been lodged by the wife of the injured, who was neither an eyewitness nor present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that the allegation of assault is specifically against the co-accused, Subhash Dewangan, who is alleged to have inflicted knife injuries upon the injured, and that no such overt act has been attributed to the present applicant. He also submits that no incriminating article has been seized or recovered from the applicant, nor has any memorandum statement of the applicant been recorded. Further, the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not attribute any specific overt act or role to the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence, the the applicant is in jail since 30.12.2025, hence, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicant allegedly in furtherance of a common intention with his son, co-accused Subhash Dewangan, he participated in assaulting the injured Jeevan Dewangan over a property dispute, instigated the attack, and facilitated the knife assault with the intention to commit his murder. It is further alleged that when Piyush Soni intervened to rescue the injured, he was also attacked and sustained injuries. The 4 prosecution relies upon the statements of the injured witnesses, other witnesses, medical evidence, and the memorandum statement of the co-accused to implicate the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh. Further, it appears that the specific allegation of inflicting knife injuries is against the co-accused, Subhash Dewangan, who is main accused and son of the applicant, hence the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of the said co-accused, who assaulted the injured, also considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Raju @ Rajendra Devangan, involved in Crime No. 598/2025 registered at Police Station D D Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 109(1), 238(b), 118(2), 3(5) of BNS, 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 5 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 him 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 him, 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil