1 CGHC010262332026 2026:CGHC:30459 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6418 of 2026 Shubham Patle S/o Hariprasad Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Bada Ashok Nagar, Near Jai Ambe Kirana Stores Police Station - Gudhiyari District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station- Gudhiyari District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 17.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 78/2026, registered at Police Station- Gudhiyari District- Raipur, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.02.2026, the complainant, Aryan Tiwari, lodged a written report at Police Station RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), alleging that at about 9:40 p.m. on the same day, he, along with Aman Pradhan and other friends, was returning home after dropping their friend Abhishek Dwivedi at Gudhiyari. When they reached near the Shamshan Ghat, Ashok Nagar, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Gudhiyari, the present accused/applicant allegedly abused the complainant and Aman Pradhan in filthy language and, during the course of the altercation, assaulted Aman Pradhan with a knife, causing multiple injuries to him. It is alleged that after inflicting the injuries, the applicant fled from the spot, whereupon the injured Aman Pradhan was immediately taken to the hospital by the complainant and other persons present at the scene. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Police Station Gudhiyari registered FIR bearing Crime No. 78/2026 against the applicant for offences punishable under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and commenced investigation. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is contended that the entire prosecution story is fabricated and based merely on suspicion, without any reliable material connecting the applicant with the alleged incident. He further submits that the applicant has been implicated primarily on the basis of memorandum statements, which by themselves have limited evidentiary value and do not constitute substantive evidence of 3 guilt. It is argued that there is no material on record to establish the requisite intention or knowledge on the part of the applicant so as to attract the provisions of Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Learned counsel also submits that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version to the extent alleged, inasmuch as the injuries sustained by the injured Aman Pradhan are not grievous in nature and the injured was discharged from the hospital after a short period and has since been carrying on his normal activities. It is further contended that the nature of injuries and the medical records do not prima facie justify invocation of the serious offence alleged against the applicant. It is also pointed out that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the Court below and the applicant is entitled to similar treatment on the ground of parity. It is also submitted that though the applicant has three criminal antecedents, all such cases have already been disposed of and no adverse inference can be drawn therefrom. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 23.02.2026, is a young person aged about 26 years, 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. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He also submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature, involving a knife attack upon the injured Aman Pradhan. It is contended that the medical 4 evidence collected during investigation clearly supports the prosecution case and reveals that the injured sustained as many as four injuries, including grievous stab wounds on vital parts of the body such as the chest and thigh, which demonstrate the violent nature of the assault. Learned State counsel further submits that sufficient material has been collected during investigation connecting the applicant with the commission of the offence and, therefore, the contention that he has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion is without substance. It is also argued that the seriousness of the injuries and the manner in which the offence was committed prima facie attract the offences alleged against the applicant. Learned State counsel further points out that the applicant has five criminal antecedents to his credit, comprising two cases under the Gambling Act, two cases involving offences under Section 294 BNS, and one case under the Excise Act, which reflect his continued involvement in unlawful activities. Considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of injuries suffered by the victim, the use of a deadly weapon, and the criminal antecedents of the applicant, learned State counsel prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the rival submissions, the case diary, the material available on record and the nature of allegations, and further the record reveals that the applicant is specifically alleged to have 5 assaulted the injured Aman Pradhan with a knife, resulting in multiple injuries. The medical evidence collected during investigation indicates that the injured sustained four injuries, including grievous stab wounds on vital parts of the body such as the chest and thigh. The nature, location and severity of the injuries prima facie support the prosecution case and disclose a serious and violent assault with a deadly weapon. At this stage, the contention of the applicant that the injuries are simple in nature or that the provisions invoked are not attracted cannot be accepted, as the same are matters to be examined during trial on the basis of evidence. The charge-sheet and other material placed on record disclose sufficient prima facie material connecting the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence. Furthermore, the applicant has as many as five criminal antecedents to his credit, including two cases under the Gambling Act, two cases relating to offences under Section 294 BNS and one case under the Excise Act. Having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the use of a deadly weapon, the grievous injuries sustained by the victim on vital parts of the body, the prima facie material available against the applicant and his criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Shubham Patle, involved in Crime No. 78/2026, registered at Police Station- Gudhiyari District- Raipur, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 6 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Rahul Dewangan