1 CGHC010252792026 2026:CGHC:31014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6266 of 2026 K. Raghavendra Rao @ Suresh Rao S/o K. Shrinivas Rao, Aged About 26 Years R/o Near River View Torwa, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Torwa District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant/State(s) : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2026 1. This is the first 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. 181/2026 registered at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 118(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 02.04.2026 at about 07:10 PM, the complainant Sunny Shrivas lodged the First Information Report KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 alleging that he along with his friend Suraj Sahu was watching the Shobha Yatra near Pendalwar and Anand Hospital, Torwa Main Road, when the main accused Priyanshu Bhole asked Suraj Sahu to move aside. Upon Suraj Sahu objecting thereto, an altercation ensued between them. It is alleged that thereafter the present applicant along with co-accused Sahil Sonkar and Vaibhav reached the spot and abused the injured, whereupon the main accused Priyanshu Bhole assaulted Suraj Sahu with a knife causing injuries. On the basis of the said report, the aforesaid crime was registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific overt act of causing any knife injury has been attributed to him. It is submitted that as per the prosecution case itself, the allegation of inflicting knife injuries is exclusively against the main accused Priyanshu Bhole, whereas the present applicant is alleged only to have participated in the incident by assaulting the injured with hands and fists. It is further submitted that the co-accused Om Bhole, whose role is similar to that of the present applicant, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.06.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.5165/2026, therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to the benefit of parity. It is further submitted that although the applicant has four criminal antecedents, all the said antecedents have been duly explained in Part-D (Criminal Antecedents) of the present bail application and in all those cases the applicant has 3 already been released on bail. It is also submitted that the investigation has been completed, charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in custody since 05.04.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant was an active participant in the unlawful assault upon the injured and had facilitated the commission of the offence by the main accused. It is submitted that though the knife injuries were inflicted by co-accused Priyanshu Bole, the present applicant is specifically alleged to have assaulted the injured with hands and fists in furtherance of their common intention and therefore, his involvement is clearly established. It is further submitted that the bail application of the main accused Priyanshu Bole, who inflicted the knife injuries, has already been rejected by this Court while passing the order in M.Cr.C. No.5165/2026 dated 17.06.2026, whereas co-accused Om Bhole was granted bail considering his distinguishable role. It is also submitted that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, all of which have been disclosed in the bail application, though merely because he is on bail in those cases would not entitle him to bail in the present matter. Hence, it is prayed that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the allegation that the main accused Priyanshu Bole inflicted knife 4 injuries upon the injured while the present applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured with hands and fists in furtherance of the common intention, the fact that the co-accused Om Bole, having a similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.06.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.5165/2026, whereas the case of the main accused Priyanshu Bhole stands on a different footing on account of the specific allegation of causing knife injuries, the fact that the applicant has four criminal antecedents which have been duly explained in Part-D (Criminal Antecedents) of the present bail application and in all those cases he has already been enlarged on bail, the completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheet, the period of incarceration of the applicant since 05.04.2026, and considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant, K. Raghavendra Rao @ Suresh Rao, involved in Crime No. 181/2026 registered at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 118(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 5 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 them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. 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