1 CGHC010308652026 2026:CGHC:35238 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7331 of 2026 1. Dilip Sahu S/o. Yagya Narayan Sahu, Aged About 23 Years R/o. - Pahadi Para, Dhaneli, Giraud, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Raju Yadav S/o. Shri Vimal Yadav, Aged About 20 Years R/o. Ward No.- 20 Pahadi Para, Dhaneli, Giraud, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House O3cer, P.S. - Dharsiva, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2026 1. This is the 9rst bail application 9led 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. 202/2026 registered at Police Station - Dharsiva, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the o<ence punishable under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 16.04.2026, the complainant, Digeshwar Kosariya, lodged an FIR at Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.12 11:02:21 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh, stating that on 15.04.2026, Dilip Sahu, Raju Yadav, and their friends from Village Dhaneli had come to Shyam Dhaba for a meal. After having their meal, at around 11:00 PM, Raju Yadav went to the “Yadav Paan Stall” situated near the dhaba. On hearing shouts and abusive language emanating from the stall, he, along with the other sta< members of the dhaba, came outside and saw two persons engaged in a 9ght. It is further alleged that one of the persons, wearing a blue shirt, and the other, wearing a white shirt, took out a knife which he was carrying. Dilip Sahu and his friends intervened and started assaulting him with their 9sts. Thereafter, Dilip Sahu allegedly snatched the knife from the hand of the companion of the injured person and stabbed Mohd. Nisar in the abdomen. The injured person was thereafter taken to the hospital for treatment. On the basis of the complainant’s report, Police Station Dharsiwa registered FIR bearing Crime No. 202/2026 against the applicants and initiated an investigation. The applicants were arrested during the course of investigation, and upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been 9led before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that at the time of the alleged incident, the applicants/accused were dining at the said dhaba when the injured person arrived there along with his companions, carrying sharp- edged weapons, and engaged in an altercation with Raju Yadav. Two persons, one of whom was wearing a white shirt and carrying a sharp-edged weapon, are clearly visible in the CCTV footage of the dhaba. The complete CCTV footage reveals the true nature of the incident, that the injured person and his companions, while under the inDuence of alcohol and armed with sharp-edged weapons, picked a quarrel with the applicants, and during the ensuing commotion, the injured person sustained an abdominal injury. He also submits that since the applicants were immediately taken into custody, they could not 3 lodge an FIR. Therefore, they narrated the entire incident to their family members, whereafter the uncle of applicant No. 1 and the father of applicant No. 2 submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur Rural, apprising him of the incident and the actual facts of the case and praying for registration of an FIR against the aggressors. He further submits that the co- accused, namely Bhuvneshwar Yadav, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2026 passed in MCRC No. 6954/2026. He submits that at the time of the incident, the injured person and his companions were under the inDuence of alcohol, which is also evident from the MLC. They initiated the altercation and themselves took out a knife and started threatening the applicant Raju Yadav. Therefore, Dilip took the knife from the person wearing the white shirt only in self-defence. While attempting to protect himself and snatching the knife, Dilip also sustained injuries. He submits that the applicants are young persons aged 23 and 20 years, respectively, and have no criminal antecedents. Therefore, it would not be justi9ed to keep them in prolonged pre-trial detention, as the same would be prejudicial to their interests and future. He also submits that the present applicants have been in jail since 17.04.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the applicants are serious in nature. It is submitted that applicant No. 1, Dilip Sahu, assaulted the injured with a knife, causing an abdominal injury, whereas applicant No. 2 actively participated in the assault by using his hands and 9sts. Hence, considering the nature and gravity of the o<ence and the speci9c overt acts attributed to the applicants, their bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the applicant No. 1, namely, Dilip Sahu, allegedly assaulted the injured, with a knife, causing grievous injuries to his stomach, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that is not a 9t case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No. 1 – Dilip Sahu, involved in Crime No. 202/2026 registered at Police Station - Dharsiva, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the o<ence punishable under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 7. Whereas, the case of applicant No. 2 is distinguishable from that of applicant No. 1, as the main allegation against applicant No. 1 is that he assaulted the injured with a knife, whereas applicant No. 2, namely, Raju Yadav, is alleged to have assaulted the injured only with his hands and 9sts. Further, considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been 9led before the competent Court, the applicant has been in custody since 17.04.2026, and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that applicant No. 2, namely, Raju Yadav, is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No. 2 – Raju Yadav, involved in Crime No. 202/2026 registered at Police Station - Dharsiva, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the o<ence punishable under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 9le an undertaking to the e<ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 9xed 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. 5 (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date 9xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su3cient 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 the date 9xed 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 9xed 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 su3cient 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. O3ce is directed to send a certi9ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek