1 CGHC010317552026 2026:CGHC:37155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7706 of 2026 Aman Dongre S/o Deepak Dongre Aged About 18 Years R/o Shantinagar, Ward No. 10, P.S. Chikhli Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chowki- Chikhli, P.S. Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant :Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, P.L. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. This is the 1st bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the Applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 210/2026 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 296, 351 (2), 115 (2), 109 (1) and 3(5) of BNS. SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2026.08.20 10:58:45 +0530 2 2. That, as per the prosecution case, the complainant, Virendra @ Saket Yadav, has alleged that on 14.04.2026, at about 8:45 P.M., while he was proceeding from Chikhli to Shankarpur during the night, he encountered the accused persons, namely Aman Dongre, Appu Yadav, and Ankit Vasnik, near Bajrang Chowk. It is alleged that owing to a previous dispute, accused Aman Dongre started abusing the complainant. The complainant allegedly stopped his motorcycle and, in turn, also abused accused Aman Dongre. Thereafter, at about 9:00 P.M., when the complainant and Luv Yadav were proceeding towards Chikhli, they again encountered the aforesaid accused persons, who allegedly intercepted them, abused them, and asked them to stop their motorcycle. It is further alleged that the accused persons threatened the complainant with dire consequences, stating that they would kill him, and thereafter assaulted him with a bamboo stick. When Luv Yadav attempted to intervene and rescue the complainant, the accused persons allegedly abused and threatened him as well.It is further alleged in the prosecution's case that accused Ankit Vasnik then allegedly took out a knife and attacked Luv Yadav. In an attempt to save himself, Luv Yadav started running; however, accused Ankit Vasnik allegedly chased him with the intention of 3 causing his death and inflicted multiple knife blows on his neck, back, and other parts of his body. It is further alleged that when Luv Yadav attempted to ward off the attack, accused Ankit Vasnik inflicted additional knife injuries near his waist, on his back, and on his shoulder. A copy of the FIR is annexed as Annexure A/2. Based on the aforesaid allegations, the police registered the offences, as mentioned above, against the present Applicant. Hence, the present application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he is not the main co-accused. It is submitted that the Applicant is alleged to have assaulted the complainant only with a blunt object, whereas the co-accused is alleged to have assaulted the complainant with a knife. It is further submitted that the Applicant has been in custody since 16.04.2026 and that the investigation is substantially complete. Learned counsel further submits that the Applicant has no likelihood of absconding and is ready and willing to cooperate with the trial. It is also submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time and that the continued incarceration of the Applicant would serve no useful purpose. He further submits that, since the Applicant has been in 4 custody since 16.04.2026, he may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations, the period of pre- trial detention, the fact that the Applicant is alleged to have caused injuries with a blunt object, resulting in a lacerated wound to the complainant, whereas co-accused Ankit is alleged to have caused injuries with a pointed weapon, i.e., a knife, and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed, the case of the Applicant is distinguishable from that of the co- accused who is alleged to have assaulted the complainant with a knife. Further, considering the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time to conclude, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let Applicant- Aman Dongre involved in Crime No. 210/2026 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 296, 351 (2), 115 (2), 5 109 (1) and 3(5) of BNS be released on bail on his 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 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. (ii) 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. (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 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 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. 6 8. 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 Saurabh