1 CGHC010302542026 2026:CGHC:35656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7430 of 2026 Santosh Dhruv S/o Ramau Dhruv Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Joba P.S. Tumgaon Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.Tumgaon Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Miss Unnati Sinha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Sourabh Sahu, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. This is the first 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.147/2026 registered at Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasasmund (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 109 (1), 118 (1), 296, 351 (3) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Shadanan KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.08.13 15:25:47 +0530 2 Baghel lodged an FIR on 7.7.2026 alleging that on the same day, he along with his wife, Smt. Yamini Baghel, and son, Prashant Baghel, had gone to their agricultural land situated at Joba Forest, Khan Karan Pound, Tarai Khet, for ploughing and sowing operations. It is alleged that there exists a boundary (med) separating the fields of the complainant and the Applicant. At about 4:30 PM, applicant Santosh Dhruv reached the spot and objected the complainant from removing the part of soil which was creating the boundary. It is further alleged that the applicant started abusing the complainant in filthy language and, during the course of altercation, assaulted him with fists and kicks. When the complainant's son, Prashant Baghel, intervened to rescue his father, the Applicant allegedly picked up a spade which had an iron rod attached to it and assaulted him on his head, causing a bleeding injury. Upon hearing the commotion, Lawrance Baghel, who was sowing his field came to intervene and stopped the fight, whereafter the Applicant allegedly threatened the complainant and his family with dire consequences before leaving the place. Thereafter FIR has been lodged. Hence the bail application. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is a case of free fight between the parties. The applicant himself sustained injuries during the occurrence and a counter case has been lodged by the applicant against the victim party vide crime No.148/2026 at P.S Tumgaon, Dist. Mahasamund under Section 3 115(2), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS registered on 07.07.2026, which clearly establishes that both parties participated in the incident. Moreover, the injuries caused to the victim are simple in nature. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 22.7.2026. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge sheet is yet to be submitted against the applicant. Therefore, the bail application may be rejected. 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, and the fact that the applicant himself sustained injuries in the incident and a counter case has been lodged by the applicant against the victim party vide crime No.148/2026 at P.S Tumgaon, Dist. Mahasamund under Section 115(2), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS, and that the charge sheet has not been filed, the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents, which is mentioned in the bail application and the applicant is in jail since 22.7.2026, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicant – Santosh Dhruv, involved in Crime No.147/2026 registered at Police Station Tumgaon, District 4 Mahasasmund (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 109 (1), 118 (1), 296, 351 (3) of the BNS, 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 their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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. 5 (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 applicants are 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 them 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. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Barve