1 CGHC010267292026 2026:CGHC:30175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6334 of 2026 Yogendra Yadav @ Yogesh Yadav S/o Shri Prem Lal Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Parsadajoshi P.S. Rajim District- Gariabandh (C.G.) (Name Of The Applicant Mentioned In The Final Report As Yogesh Yadav But Due To Typographical Error His Name Is Wrongly Mentioned In The Bail Rejection Order Of The Trial Court As Well As Hon'ble High Court As Yogendra Yadav) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Office Police Station Rajim District- Gariabandh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Non-applicant/State(s) : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2026 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. 31/2026 registered at Police Station Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 351(3), 332(b), 332(c), 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 326(g), 238, 117(2), 118(2) of BNS. 2. The earlier first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court in MCRC No.5597/2026 vide order dated 29.06.2026 on the ground that the bail application suffered from various defects. Hence, the second bail application. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.02.2026 at about 1:30 PM, complainant Kasmuddin Quraishi @ Raju Khan, a property dealer by profession, lodged a Dehati Nalishi alleging that one Aarif Khan, after being released from jail in a case relating to damaging a Shivaling, created ruckus in Village Dutkaiya and nearby Village Parsada during the intervening night of 31.01.2026 and 01.02.2026 by assaulting the villagers. It is alleged that on account of the said incident, the agitated villagers surrounded the complainant and his family members, abused them, damaged their house and, in furtherance of their common object, assaulted them with knife, iron rod, bricks and sticks causing injuries. It is further alleged that the accused persons also set the houses and vehicles of the complainant and his neighbours, namely Anwar Khan and Balla @ Amjad Khan, on fire. It is also alleged that when the police personnel reached the spot and were shifting the complainant and other injured persons, the accused persons assaulted the police personnel by pelting bricks and using iron rods, thereby causing injuries to them. During investigation, the present applicant Yogesh Yadav was arrayed as accused No.6 in the charge-sheet for being a member of the unlawful assembly and participating in the 3 aforesaid incident. Accordingly, offence under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 332(b), 332(c), 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 326(g), 238, 117(2) and 118(2) of the BNS has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. He further submits that there was a simple dispute arising out of previous enmity and no specific overt act has been attributed to the present applicant. He further submits that the injured persons have sustained only simple injuries and the applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. He further submits that a similarly situated co- accused namely Pushpa @ Pooja Sahu has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.4292/2026 vide order dated 07.05.2026. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant is specifically named in the charge-sheet and is one of the members of the unlawful assembly which, in furtherance of its common object, assaulted the complainant party, damaged their houses, set the houses and vehicles on fire and also assaulted the police personnel who reached the spot to rescue the victims. She further submits that co- 4 accused Pushpa @ Pooja Sahu was granted bail by this Court solely considering that she is a lady accused and, therefore, her case stands on a different footing. She further submits that the bail applications of similarly situated co-accused namely Gulshan Kumar Sahu, Narendra Sahu, Manish Sahu and Piyush Sahu have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No.4277/2026 vide order dated 07.05.2026. She further submits that the bail applications of co-accused Ishwar Sahu, Amarsingh Sahu, Manoj Kumar Sahu and Vickey @ Vyanktesh Sahu have also been rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2026. She further submits that the bail application of co-accused Upendra Sahu has also been rejected by this Court in MCRC No.4241/2026 vide order dated 07.05.2026. She further submits that the bail applications of other co-accused namely Manoj Kumar Yadav, Kiran Yadav, Dagge @ Dageshwar Yadav and Rakesh Kumar Sahu have also been rejected by this Court in MCRC No.4283/2026 vide order dated 08.05.2026. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, the present applicant is also not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the bail application as well as case diary available on record. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the case diary and the material available on record, it appears that the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court in MCRC No.5597/2026 vide 5 order dated 29.06.2026 on account of certain defects pointed out by the Registry and the same was not considered on merits. Therefore, the present second bail application is being considered on its own merits. Prima facie, the material collected during the course of investigation reveals that the present applicant is one of the members of the unlawful assembly which, in furtherance of its common object, allegedly assaulted the complainant party and other victims by means of knife, iron rod, bricks and sticks, damaged their houses, set their houses and vehicles ablaze and also assaulted the police personnel who had reached the spot to rescue the victims, thereby causing injuries to them. Though learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the bail order passed in favour of co-accused Pushpa @ Pooja Sahu in MCRC No.4292/2026 vide order dated 07.05.2026, the said co- accused was granted bail considering that she is a lady accused and, therefore, her case stands on a different footing. On the contrary, the bail applications of other similarly situated co-accused namely Gulshan Kumar Sahu, Narendra Sahu, Manish Sahu and Piyush Sahu in MCRC No.4277/2026, Upendra Sahu in MCRC No.4241/2026, Ishwar Sahu, Amarsingh Sahu, Manoj Kumar Sahu and Vickey @ Vyanktesh Sahu vide order dated 07.05.2026, and Manoj Kumar Yadav, Kiran Yadav, Dagge @ Dageshwar Yadav and Rakesh Kumar Sahu in MCRC No.4283/2026 vide order dated 08.05.2026 have already been rejected by this Court on merits. Looking to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the material collected during 6 investigation and the fact that the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused whose bail applications have already been rejected by this Court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant namely- Yogendra Yadav @ Yogesh Yadav, involved in Crime No. 31/2026 registered at Police Station Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 332(b), 332(c), 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 326(g), 238, 117(2), 118(2) of BNS., is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. 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 Kunal