1 CGHC010260802026 2026:CGHC:29641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6245 of 2026 Rohit Vishwakarma S/o- Manoj Vishwakarma Aged About 20 Years R/o- Changorabhata Near Shri Ramnagar Chandrakar Kirana, Changorabhata, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dindayal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 487/2025 registered at Police Station- Dindayal Nagar, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 296, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.10.2025, complainant Subhash Dewangan lodged a First Information Report at Police Station D.D. Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), stating that on the night of 19.10.2025 at about 11:42 p.m., he received a phone call from Pintu Patwa, a friend of his younger brother Montu Dewangan, informing him that Montu had been involved in a quarrel near Almirah Factory, Changorabhata, Raipur, and had sustained serious injuries during the incident. Upon receiving the information, the complainant immediately rushed to the spot and found his brother injured with multiple sharp-cut injuries on and around his left eye, right ear, cheek and back. When questioned, the injured Montu Dewangan informed the complainant that at about 11:00 p.m. on 19.10.2025, he had a dispute with Rahul Dewangan, who allegedly assaulted him with a knife with an intention to cause his death. The victim further stated that Rahul Dewangan was accompanied by Rohit Vishwakarma (the present applicant), Chinki Patnayak @ Chiku and certain other persons. On the basis of the said report, the crime was registered and investigation was undertaken. After rejection of their anticipatory bail applications, the present applicant Rohit Vishwakarma and co-accused Karan Sahu surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 13.03.2026, whereupon they were taken into custody and remanded to judicial custody. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present 3 case. It is contended that the applicant has been arrested merely on the basis of suspicion and there is no substantive material available on record to establish that any of the injuries sustained by the victim were caused by the present applicant. He further submits that, as per the prosecution case itself, co-accused Rahul Dewangan is the principal accused against whom specific allegations of assault with a knife have been levelled. It is argued that due to previous enmity between Rahul Dewangan and the victim, who are residents of the same locality, disputes and quarrels frequently took place between them. Attention is drawn to the First Information Report and the statement of the injured victim, wherein specific allegations of causing grievous injuries by means of a knife have been attributed only to co-accused Rahul Dewangan. So far as the present applicant is concerned, the only allegation is that he, along with other co-accused persons, allegedly assaulted the victim by fists and kicks. He further submits that the case of the present applicant stands on a similar footing to that of co-accused Karan Sahu, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 3719 of 2026, vide order dated 02.07.2026. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, he has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 13.03.2026, the charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has 4 been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused person has already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co- accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, the fact that though the applicant along with co-accused are alleged to have assaulted the injured by hand and fist during the incident, but also considering the fact that one of the co-accused person, namely, Karan Sahu, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3719 of 2026, vide order dated 02.07.2026, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused person, further he has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, and he is jail since 13.03.2026, the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Rohit Vishwakarma, involved in Crime No. 487/2025 registered at Police Station- Dindayal Nagar, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 296, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the 5 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 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 6 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 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