1 2026:CGHC:2459 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9696 of 2025 Sunny @ Rohit Padey S/o Shri Ravishankar Padey Aged About 23 Years R/o Pandri Talab, Near Shiv Temple, P.S. Devendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As Pandey In Impugned Order) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Civil Lines, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 465/2025, registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 24.09.2025 at around 4:30 P.M., the complainant (Haritandi), while returning from the District and Sessions Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), was intercepted by the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.16 11:51:51 +0530 2 applicant and the co-accused persons, namely Anand Borle and Rahul Pandey. It is alleged that they started abusing the complainant and attacked him with a knife, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his left hand. Hence, the FIR was lodged. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have caused injuries with a knife after snatching it from the co-accused, who is his real brother. As per the MLC report, one incised wound was found on the left hand, whereas two lacerated wounds were also noted. The injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature. It is further submitted that the applicant has three previous criminal antecedents, out of which two cases are disposed of and one case are pending, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.09.2025. As the trial is likely to take a considerable time for its conclusion, learned counsel prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submitted that the applicant is alleged to have caused injuries with a knife after snatching it from the co-accused, who is his real brother. As per the MLC report, one incised wound was found on the left hand, whereas two lacerated wounds were also noted, further the applicant has three previous criminal antecedents, out of which two are disposed of and one case are pending. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 3 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the injuries sustained by the victim is simple in nature and further, the applicant has three previous criminal antecedents, out of which two cases are disposed of and one case are pending, the charge-sheet has been filed and he is in jail since 26.09.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Sunny @ Rohit Padey, involved in Crime No. 465/2025, registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 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. 4 (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. 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 Preeti