1 CGHC010225792026 2026:CGHC:30229 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5362 of 2026 1 - Bhanu @ Gutti Nureti S/o Late Gudru Nureti Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Hidur, Chhotebethiya, District- North Bastar-Kanker (C.G.) ...Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Baande, District- North Bastar-Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Gajendra Prakash Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 No. 41/2005 registered at Police Station –Baande, District- North Bastar- Kanker (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307/149 of IPC and Section 25(1)(1B)(a) and 27(2) of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.03.2025 at about 4:45 A.M., within the jurisdiction of Police Station (OP) Bande, near Chhotebethiya High School, the accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with the common object of attacking the police force and looting their weapons. It is alleged that they were in possession of prohibited arms and ammunition without any lawful authority and used the same for unlawful purposes. On the basis of the report lodged by Head Constable Lakhesh Kumar Gangesh, FIRs were registered at Police Chowki Bande and Police Station (OP) Bande for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was also implicated in the crime, and upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that there is no cogent, credible or legally admissible material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is neither named in the FIR with any specific role nor has any overt act been attributed to him. It is further submitted that no incriminating 3 article, arms, ammunition or any other material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the prosecution case against him rests merely on a vague and uncorroborated reference, which is insufficient to establish his involvement. It is further contended that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed; therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 12.03.2025. Since the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, an affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Police clarifying that the present applicant, Manu Nureti @ Gutti Nureti, is the very same person against whom Crime No. 41/2005 has been registered. It is submitted that the identity of the applicant stands duly established on the basis of the Panchnama dated 12.03.2025, prepared in the presence of independent witnesses, as well as his Aadhaar Card and other records collected during the investigation. Learned State counsel further submits that the applicant has sought to create confusion regarding his identity by filing the present bail application in the name of "Bhanu @ Gutti Nureti", whereas no person by the name of "Bhanu" is reflected in 4 the case records. It is contended that the offence alleged against the applicant is of a serious nature involving an attack on the police force by an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. In view of the gravity of the offence, the material available on record, and the affidavit clarifying the applicant's identity, it is prayed that the application for grant of bail be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary, the material available on record as well as the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. 6. The affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, supported by the Panchnama dated 12.03.2025, the applicant's Aadhaar Card and other material collected during the investigation, prima facie establishes that the present applicant, Manu Nureti @ Gutti Nureti, is the same person against whom Crime No. 41/2005 has been registered. At this stage, the contention raised on behalf of the applicant regarding mistaken identity does not inspire confidence. The allegations against the applicant are grave in nature, involving his alleged participation in an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with the common object of attacking the police force and looting their weapons. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant regarding absence of recovery, lack of specific role and insufficiency of evidence relate to disputed questions of fact, which can 5 appropriately be adjudicated only during the course of trial and cannot be conclusively examined at the stage of consideration of bail. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations, the material available on record, the clarification regarding the identity of the applicant furnished by the investigating agency pursuant to the directions of this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of regular bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the applicant, Bhanu @ Gutti Nureti, in connection with Crime No. 41/2005 registered at Police Station – Baande, District- North Bastar- Kanker (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307/149 of IPC and Section 25(1)(1B)(a) and 27(2) of Arms Act, deserves to be and is hereby rejected at this stage. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Ruchi