1 CGHC010315062026 2026:CGHC:37151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7581 of 2026 1 - Madan Yadav S/o Thunu Yadav Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Ambadeepa, Police Chowki-Pandrapath, P.S. Bagicha, District- Jashpur, C.G. 2 - Thakur Dayal Yadav S/o Madan Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Ambadeepa, Police Chowki-Pandrapath, P.S. Bagicha, District- Jashpur, C.G. 3 - Satyapal Yadav S/o Madan Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Ambadeepa, Police Chowki-Pandrapath, P.S. Bagicha, District- Jashpur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House O3cer, Police Station- Bagicha, District- Jashpur, C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/08/2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 91/2026, registered at Police Station – Bagicha, District – Jashpur (C.G.) for the o>ences punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 191(3) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Jawaharlal Yadav, lodged a report at Police Station Bagicha on 20.04.2026 alleging that since the time of his ancestors, he has been in possession of the land situated near his house and has been using the same as a threshing ?oor (khalihan) and cattle shed (gothan). It is alleged that Thakur Dayal Yadav, Madan Yadav, Satyapal Yadav and other persons were disputing the said land by claiming it to be their own and had also got the said land recorded in their names. On 20.04.2026 at about 9:30 AM, Thakur Dayal Yadav, Madan Yadav, Satyapal Yadav, Vinod Yadav, Amarnath Yadav and other persons allegedly came to the spot armed with lathis, tangi and sabbal. At that time, the complainant's niece Pratibha Yadav, nephew Mithiles Yadav, daughter Manju Yadav and son Sandeep Yadav had gone to collect straw and allegedly saw Thakur Dayal Yadav and his family members Cxing wooden stakes (khunta) on the disputed land. When they objected to the same, the accused persons allegedly started assaulting them. On hearing the commotion, the complainant's elder brother Bihari Lal Yadav, sister-in-law Sumitra Yadav and mother Jayanti Yadav reached the spot, whereupon the accused persons allegedly abused them in Clthy language, threatened them with dire 3 consequences and assaulted them with lathis, tangi and sabbal. As a result of the alleged assault, Bihari Lal Yadav sustained injuries on his head and both legs, Sumitra Yadav sustained injuries on her head and forehead, and Jayanti Yadav sustained injuries on her head, forehead and left hand. Consequently, the aforesaid o>ence was registered against the applicants and other accused persons and they were arrested. During investigation, weapons allegedly used in the commission of the o>ence were seized, including an axe from applicant No.1 Madan Yadav, a sabbal from applicant No.2 Thakur Dayal Yadav and a stick from applicant No.3 Satyapal Yadav. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and the allegations levelled against them are concocted, exaggerated and devoid of truth. It is further submitted that the present FIR has been lodged on account of a pre-existing land dispute between the parties and the allegations are motivated by personal enmity and rivalry relating to the ownership and possession of the disputed property. Learned counsel submits that the land in question bearing Khasra No.138/2 is recorded in the name and possession of the applicants/accused persons and therefore, the complainant has falsely claimed possession over the same only with a view to create a dispute. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is fabricated and exaggerated and the applicants have been falsely implicated due to the ongoing civil dispute between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR itself re?ects mala Cde 4 intention on the part of the complainant, as one of the persons named as an accused, namely Amarnath Yadav, had already expired on 18.06.2021, much prior to the alleged incident dated 20.04.2026. It is also submitted that another accused, namely Vinod Yadav, was not found present at the place of occurrence during investigation, which further creates doubt regarding the prosecution version. He further submits that the allegations against the applicants are general and omnibus in nature and no speciCc overt act has been attributed individually to the present applicants and the applicants have no criminal antecedents and are in judicial custody since 21.04.2026. It is further submitted that out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined before the trial Court till date and therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicants prays that the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the present applicants are serious in nature and that as many as seven persons sustained injuries in the incident. It is submitted that out of the seven injured persons, four injured persons sustained simple injuries whereas three injured persons sustained grievous injuries. Learned State counsel further submits that injured Bihari Lal Yadav sustained grievous injuries on his scalp and head, injured Sumitra Yadav sustained injuries on her forehead and above the eye and the other injured person also sustained grievous injuries and 5 fracture was also found. It is further submitted that the present applicants are speciCcally alleged to have participated in the assault and the weapons allegedly used in the commission of the o>ence have also been seized from their possession, including an axe from applicant No.1 Madan Yadav, a sabbal from applicant No.2 Thakur Dayal Yadav and a stick from applicant No.3 Satyapal Yadav. Therefore, looking to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the injuries sustained by the injured persons, learned State counsel prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary and the documents annexed therewith. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants, the fact that there are seven injured persons in the present case, out of whom four injured persons have sustained simple injuries and three injured persons have sustained grievous injuries and further considering the fact that the applicants are alleged to have participated in the assault and an axe has been seized from applicant No.1 Madan Yadav, a sabbal has been seized from applicant No.2 Thakur Dayal Yadav and a stick has been seized from applicant No.3 Satyapal Yadav, and also considering the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the incident arose out of a land dispute between the parties, the applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in judicial custody since 21.04.2026, and so far as the status of the trial is concerned, out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, not even a single prosecution 6 witness has been examined before the trial Court till date and therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate to enlarge the applicants on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the applicants – Madan Yadav, Thakur Dayal Yadav and Satyapal Yadav, involved in Crime No. 91/2026, registered at Police Station – Bagicha, District – Jashpur (C.G.) for the o>ences punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 191(3) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall Cle an undertaking to the e>ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates Cxed 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 Cxed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without su3cient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail 7 during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date Cxed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, 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 Cxed 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 deliberated or without su3cient 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. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certiCed copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 10. O3ce is directed to send a certiCed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal