1 CGHC010237162026 2026:CGHC:30037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5725 of 2026 Naveen Kumar Yadav @ Dadu S/o Shri Anand Ram Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o House No. 672, Yadav Para Near Gaura Chowk Raipura P.S. D.D. Nagar Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer Police Station D.D. Nagar Raipur District Raipur C.G. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 167/2026 registered at Police Station - D.D. Nagar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 109, 3(5) and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 08/03/2026 at about 1.30 PM, VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.16 11:11:30 +0530 2 near Agarwal Marriage Palace, 3-4 unknown assailants. whose faces were covered with scarves, arrived in an e-rickshaw. abused the victim (Chetan Nishad) and one amongst them allegedly inflicted a knife blow on the stomach of the victim, whereafter all the assailants fled from the place of occurrence. That, admittedly, the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and no specific role or identity of the present Applicant finds mention therein. During the course of investigation, the police interrogated a co-accused, Juvenile in Conflict with Law (Kishore Gagan Yadu @ Ladle), and solely on the basis of the memorandum statement allegedly made by the said co-accused, the name of the present Applicant surfaced in the case. Thereafter, on the basis of the disclosure memorandum purportedly recorded and a knife is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the present Applicant. The applicant/accused was arrested on 11/03/2026 by the Police officials of concerned Police station and since then he is in custody. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent, has been falsely implicated in the present case, and has become a victim of arbitrary police action. It is contended that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has never been convicted in any criminal case. It is further submitted that no eyewitness has specifically attributed the role of inflicting the alleged injury to the applicant and there is no direct evidence connecting him with the commission of the offence. The alleged recovery of a knife at the instance of the applicant is a weak piece of evidence, the admissibility and evidentiary value of which are matters to be tested during trial. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution case rests 3 merely on the memorandum statement of the co-accused and the alleged recovery, neither of which constitutes substantive evidence. It is also contended that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted despite the assailants being unknown and their faces allegedly covered, and no independent witness was associated with either the memorandum proceedings or the alleged recovery, thereby rendering the prosecution case doubtful. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 11.03.2026, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present applicant along with other co-accused person assaulted the injured, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and and that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 11.03.2026, and as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Naveen Kumar Yadav @ Dadu, involved in Crime No. 167/2026 registered at Police Station - D.D. Nagar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 109, 3(5) and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on his 4 furnishing personal bond with two local 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 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 his 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 5 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav