1 2026:CGHC:13084 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2094 of 2026 1 - Ayan Parwez S/o Nahid Parwez Aged About 27 Years R/o Shree Vihar, Rawatpura Colony, Bhatagaon, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer For Objector : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 18/03/2026 1. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.01.2026 in M.Cr.C. No. 10503/2025. 2. This bail application is filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 87/2024 registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 307, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Case of prosecution is that, father of victim lodged report in the concerned police station on 02.02.2024 alleging that on 01.02.2024 at 2 about 10:30 P.M. co-accused abused and assaulted his son by means of sharp edged article, due to assault, he suffered grievous injuries over his person. Based on the report, aforementioned crime was registered and applicant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the crime. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 25.10.2025. The person who has caused stab injury on the applicant has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 14.07.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 5035/2025. Applicant has been arrrested for the offence punishable under Sections 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that the petitioner has hatched conspiracy to implicate his in-laws. There are 26 enlisted wtinesses out of which, 08 witness have been examined till date. Trial may take sometime, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by counsel for the applicant and would submit that the applicant is the mastermind of the offences and he himself has hatched conspiracy with the co-accused Anil Nihal to get himself injured to implicate his in-laws and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the Objector (wife of the applicant) would also oppose the submission made by the counsel for applicant for grant of bail to the applicant. He submits that the objector is having apprehension that after release of the applicant on bail, he may cause injury upon her as she is also one of the witness to the incident. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is only an apprehension of the objector. Objector who is the wife of applicant has filed two cases against the applicant, one under Section 498A of the 3 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and another under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Both the proceedings are pending. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents filed along with the bail application. 9. Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, other co-accused person has been enlarged on bail, period of pre-trial detention suffered by the applicant, documents enclosed along with the bail application, trial is likely to take sometime, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application for grant of bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of Trial Court concerned on the conditions that: (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial andin order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. 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 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) 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. 4 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY