1 CGHC010319382026 2026:CGHC:37590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7821 of 2026 1 - Arjun Ramteke S/o Sachin Ramteke Aged About 20 Years R/o Ramnagar, Ward No. 14, Gauri Gaura Stage Sikolabhatha, Durg Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashok Patil, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.08.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 connection with Crime No. 149/2025 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Earlier, the first bail application preferred by the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2026, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10475/2025. 3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, the complainant, Narendra Sen, lodged a report at Police Station Mohan Nagar stating that, on the night of 19.04.2025 at about 10:30 p.m., his younger brother, Jitendra Sen, had gone out after dinner. At about 11:25 p.m., the complainant was informed that Jitendra had been involved in a quarrel and was lying injured near a toilet. Upon reaching the spot, the complainant found Jitendra having sustained serious injuries on his head and back and bleeding profusely. On being asked, the injured allegedly stated that, due to previous enmity, the applicant/accused Arjun Ramteke had assaulted him with a knife with an intention to cause his death, resulting in the said injuries. On the basis of the report, Police Station Mohan Nagar registered Crime No. 149/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the BNS against the applicant. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the present bail application has been filed primarily on the ground that the trial is pending at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence and that the complainant, Narendra Sen and the injured witness, 3 Jitendra Sen, who are material witnesses, have failed to appear before the Trial Court despite repeated summons. It is further submitted that, even after issuance of a bailable warrant against the injured witness pursuant to the order dated 29.04.2026, he failed to appear before the Trial Court on 22.05.2026 and has continued to remain absent. Learned counsel further submits that, while rejecting the first bail application, this Court had granted liberty to the Trial Court to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously; however, owing to the continued non-appearance of the material witnesses, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The applicant has been in custody since 20.04.2025. In these circumstances, learned counsel prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and that the injured witness is yet to be examined before the Trial Court. However, learned State counsel does not dispute that the applicant has remained in custody since 20.04.2025 and that the trial is pending at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. Considering the nature of the allegations, learned State counsel prays for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant since 20.04.2025, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is pending at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence, it is evident that the material witnesses, 4 including the complainant and the injured witness, have not appeared before the Trial Court despite repeated summons and issuance of a bailable warrant against the injured witness. In view of the continued non-appearance of the material witnesses, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Further, while rejecting the first bail application, this Court had granted liberty to the Trial Court to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously. In these circumstances, keeping the applicant in further custody would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant – Arjun Ramteke involved in Crime No. 149/2025 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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 5 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. 9. The trial Court concerned is directed to make every endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Ruchi