1 CGHC010306112026 2026:CGHC:37149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7612 of 2026 Abhishek Gupta S/o Late Rakesh Kumar Gupta Aged About 23 Years R/o Near Sai Mandir, Phase 2, Rawatpura Colony, Mathpurena, P.S.- Tikrapara, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/08/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 128/2026, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the o:ences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Shrawan Tandi lodged a report at Police Station City Kotwali stating that on 15.03.2026 at about 09:00 P.M., he along with his brother Abhishek Soni and Sameer Baghel was sitting near Dhanraj Kirana Shop, Gandhi Nagar, Raipur, when Vikram Baghel, Abhishek Gupta, Abhishek Baghel @ Jadu, Mohit Nihal and their other associates came there and started abusing them in ?lthy language and threatened to kill them. It is further alleged that they started assaulting his brother Abhishek Soni and Sameer Baghel by ?sts and blows. It is alleged that thereafter Vikram took out a knife which he was carrying and Mohit Nihal took out two knives and handed over one knife each to Jadu and Abhishek Gupta/applicant. Thereafter, Vikram Baghel and present applicant/ Abhishek Gupta allegedly assaulted Abhishek Soni with knives with an intention to kill him, due to which he sustained injury on his back and thigh. It is further alleged that Mohit Nihal caught hold of both hands of Sameer Baghel and Jadu assaulted him with a knife, causing injuries on his left thigh and left hand. When Guddi Baghel came to intervene, Vikram Baghel allegedly assaulted her with a knife on her right hand and Nihal and his other associates assaulted her by ?sts and kicks. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 128/2026 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the o:ences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the aforesaid o:ences and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was ?led before the competent Court. 3 It is further reBected from the case diary that tThe nature of injuries sustained by injured Abhishek Soni and Sameer Baghel has not yet been ?nally disclosed in the medical examination report received from Mekahara Hospital, Raipur. The injured Guddi Baghel is also reported to have sustained injuries. As per the Query Report, the injuries sustained by the injured persons could have been caused by the knife seized in the case, however, regarding the life-threatening nature of the injuries, the same is stated to be subject to FSL examination and opinion of the concerned Orthopedic and General Surgery specialists and the possibility of the injuries being life-threatening has also been expressed. The FSL report is still awaited. It is further alleged that the applicant and the co-accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted the complainant and the injured persons by ?sts, blows and knives and that the applicant and Vikram Baghel assaulted Abhishek Soni with a knife while stating that they would kill him. The knife allegedly used in the incident has been seized from the present applicant Abhishek Gupta on the basis of his memorandum statement. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the o:ence on the basis of fabricated facts. He further submits that the charge-sheet in the present matter has already been ?led and the applicant's further custodial interrogation is no longer required. He further submits that the medical examination and Query Report reveal that a ?nal determination regarding the life-threatening nature of the injuries is 4 still pending, awaiting the FSL report and expert opinion from an Orthopedic and General Surgeon and, therefore, the invocation of Section 109(1) of the BNS is premature and exaggerated. He further submits that co-accused Mohit Nihal had provided the knife to the applicant and another co-accused for assaulting the injured persons and that the applicant had assaulted the injured on a non- vital part of the body, i.e. on the thigh. He further submits that co- accused Lakshmikant Mahanand has already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5572/2026 and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to the bene?t of bail. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that co-accused Mohit Nihal has already been denied bail by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6951/2026. He further submits that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Lakshmikant Mahanand, on whose behalf the applicant is claiming parity, as the name of Lakshmikant Mahanand was not mentioned in the FIR, whereas the present applicant has been speci?cally named in the FIR. He further submits that the knife used in the commission of the o:ence has been seized from the present applicant on the basis of his memorandum statement and the prosecution case speci?cally alleges his involvement in assaulting the injured persons with the knife. He further submits that looking to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the speci?c role 5 attributed to the present applicant, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant and the allegation that the applicant along with the co-accused persons came to the spot, abused the complainant and the injured persons, assaulted them with knives and that the applicant and co- accused Vikram Baghel allegedly assaulted injured Abhishek Soni with a knife with an intention to kill him, further the allegation that co-accused Mohit Nihal caught hold of injured Sameer Baghel and the co-accused persons caused injuries to the injured persons and the fact that the knife allegedly used in the incident has been seized from the present applicant on the basis of his memorandum statement, coupled with the fact that the applicant is speci?cally named in the FIR, this Court is of the view that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Lakshmikant Mahanand, who has been granted bail by this Court, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the bene?t of parity and already the bail application of the co-accused has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 6951/2026 vide order dated 31.07.2026. Thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant-Abhishek Gupta, involved in Crime No. 128/2026, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the o:ences punishable under 6 Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conlcude the trial expeditiously. 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