1 CGHC010244772026 2026:CGHC:31549 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6047 of 2026 1 - Rupesh Yadav S/o Mangal Singh Yadav Aged About 18 Years R/o Village- Chichiya, Police Station- Devbhog, District- Gariyaband (Cg) 2 - Shishupal Yadav S/o Mangal Singh Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Village-Chichiya, Police Station-Devbhog, District- Gariyaband (Cg) ...Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Devbhog, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2026 1. This the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.119/2026 registered at Police Station – Devbhog, District- Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.24 10:55:39 +0530 2 115(2),351(3), 109 & 3(5) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.04.2026, the complainant, Mohan Lal Yadav, brother of the injured Bhanwar Singh Yadav, lodged a written report at Police Station Devbhog, District Gariyaband (C.G.), alleging that at about 5:00 p.m. on the same day, the present applicants reached the agricultural field of the complainant to cut a neem tree. When the injured, Bhanwar Singh Yadav, objected to the cutting of the tree by stating that it belonged to him, both the applicants allegedly became enraged, abused him in filthy language, and assaulted him with a tangiya (axe), causing injuries on his head and other parts of his body. On the basis of the said report, the police registered an FIR against the present applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, the injured was medically examined, and after completion of the investigation, finding sufficient material against the applicants, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet before the competent Trial Court. It is the further case of the prosecution that the applicants, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused injuries to the injured by using a deadly weapon, thereby attracting the aforesaid offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of a long-standing dispute relating to the agricultural land between the parties. It is contended that the entire prosecution story is fabricated and no prima facie material is available to establish the 3 involvement of the applicants in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case inasmuch as the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature and do not attract the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel submits that the incident was, in fact, a free fight in which both sides assaulted each other, and a cross-FIR bearing Crime No. 120/2026 was also registered on the complaint of applicant No. 2 on the very same day, i.e., 10.04.2026. It is further argued that the applicants themselves sustained multiple injuries, including a grievous head injury suffered by applicant No. 1, yet the Investigating Agency failed to invoke the appropriate penal provisions against the complainant party, thereby demonstrating a biased and one-sided investigation. It is also submitted that the applicants were arrested merely on suspicion without any proper investigation and that there is no cogent evidence establishing the requisite mens rea or their involvement in the alleged offence. The investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court; therefore, there is no likelihood of the applicants tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants have been in judicial custody since 19.04.2026, have no criminal antecedents, are permanent residents of the address mentioned in the cause title, belong to a respectable family, and there is no likelihood of their absconding or misusing the liberty if released on bail. It is lastly submitted that similarly placed co- accused have already been granted bail by the learned Court below and, therefore, on the grounds of parity, prolonged incarceration, 4 completion of investigation, and the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. It is further submitted that the present applicants assaulted the injured, causing grievous injuries. Learned State counsel also submitted that applicant No. 2 has two criminal antecedents. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the present applicants are not entitled to be released on regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the material available in the case diary, it is observed that the present case arises out of a quarrel between two parties, wherein cross-reports have been lodged by both sides. It is further observed that the injured has sustained simple injuries. The applicants has been in judicial custody since 19.04.2026, and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. Considering that the trial is likely to take some time and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 7. Let the Applicants – Rupesh Yadav & Shishupal Yadav, involved in Crime No.119/2026 registered at Police Station – Devbhog, District- Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2),351(3),109 & 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the 5 satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail 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 applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. 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 vaibhav