1 CGHC010252782026 2026:CGHC:31015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6259 of 2026 Mayank Sahu S/o Pyare Lal Sahu, Aged About 20 Years R/o Parras, Tahsil And District Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station Balod, District Balod, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri 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. 128/2026 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.03.2026, pursuant to a dispute which had allegedly arisen during a marriage ceremony KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 held on 14.03.2026, the complainant/injured was called to the house of Dhanraj Nishad in the name of amicable settlement. It is alleged that when the complainant refused to execute a compromise, the present applicant along with the co-accused persons abused and threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, the present applicant allegedly assaulted the complainant with a knife on his neck and head, resulting in bleeding injuries. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, the present crime was registered. During investigation, the injured was medically examined, the knife was seized, the applicant was arrested 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 has not committed any offence as alleged. He submits that the incident had its genesis in a trivial dispute which arose during a marriage procession on 14.03.2026, and subsequently, on 20.03.2026, the complainant was called only to resolve the dispute amicably. It is further submitted that the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured by means of a knife on the neck and parietal region, however, no surgery was conducted, no internal damage was found and even the medical opinion was kept reserved, stating that the nature of injury could be opined only after surgical and ENT examination. It is also submitted that no fracture has been found and the applicant and the complainant are friends having no previous enmity, thereby indicating absence of any intention to cause such injury. Learned 3 counsel further submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 21.03.2026, the investigation has been completed, charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and therefore no further custodial interrogation is required. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant inflicted knife blows on the neck and head of the injured, which are vital parts of the body, and the injuries sustained by the injured were likely to cause death. He submits that looking to the nature of the allegations and the seriousness of the injuries, the applicant does not deserve the benefit of bail. However, he fairly submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, the fact that the incident appears to have arisen out of a sudden dispute between the parties during and subsequent to a marriage ceremony, the medical record indicating that no surgery was conducted and no internal damage has been reported, though the injuries are alleged to have been sustained on the neck and parietal region, the investigation having already been completed and charge-sheet having been filed before the competent Court, the applicant being in judicial custody since 21.03.2026 and further the fact that the applicant has no criminal 4 antecedents and considering that the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, thus without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Mayank Sahu, involved in Crime No. 128/2026 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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 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 him 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 5 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 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal