1 CGHC010308522026 2026:CGHC:36564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7577 of 2026 Mannu @ Maneesh Goswami S/o Shri Sanup Goswami Aged About 20 Years R/o- Ward No. 15, Bannak Chowk Sirgitti, P.S.- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rishabhdev, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 243/2026 registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 118(2) & 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.04.2026 at about 10:45 p.m., while the complainant, Om Prakash Shrivas had gone to watch a wedding procession near Madhav Gali, accused Raghvendra alias Bhurwa Verma allegedly abused him in filthy language, threatened to kill him, and assaulted him with fists and a sharp-edged weapon, causing injuries to his back. During investigation, Raghvendra, in his memorandum statement, disclosed that he, along with co-accused Lokesh Yadav, Gajendra Vishwakarma, and Manish alias Mannu Goswami, had attacked the complainant with a knife, and a knife was recovered from Raghvendra's possession. The complainant also stated in his police statement that all the accused had jointly assaulted him, thereby prima facie indicating the involvement of the present applicant, Manish alias Mannu Goswami. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the specific role of assault has been attributed to the co-accused, Raghvendra alias Bhurwa Verma and Lokesh Yadav, whereas no specific overt act or role in the alleged assault has been assigned to the present 3 applicant, Mannu alias Maneesh Goswami. The present applicant has been implicated in the present case only on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused, Raghvendra alias Bhurwa Verma, and no independent material has been brought on record to establish his direct involvement in the alleged assault. The applicant is in jail since 29.05.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant allegedly in collusion with co-accused Raghvendra alias Bhurwa Verma, Lokesh Yadav and Gajendra Vishwakarma, jointly assaulted the complainant with a knife, due to which, the sustained injuries on his back, further the weapon of assault used in the incident has been recovered from the possession of Raghvendra, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 29.05.2026, the fact that though the applicant allegedly in collusion with co-accused Raghvendra alias Bhurwa Verma, 4 Lokesh Yadav and Gajendra Vishwakarma, jointly assaulted the complainant with a knife, due to which, the sustained injuries on his back, but considering the fact that specific role of assault has been attributed to the co-accused, Raghvendra alias Bhurwa Verma and Lokesh Yadav, who assaulted the injured with knife, the name of present applicant has been come into light from the memorandum statement of co-accused, Raghvendra alias Bhurwa Verma and the weapon of assault used in the incident has also been recovered from the possession of the said co-accused, hence, the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of the said co-accused, who assault the injured with knife, further the applicant no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Mannu @ Maneesh Goswami, involved in Crime No. 243/2026 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 118(2) & 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the 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 5 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil