1 CGHC010281152026 2026:CGHC:38187 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6729 of 2026 Hemlata Chouhan W/o Girdhari Chouhan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sapos, Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti C.G. At Present Resident Of Village Kaidimuda, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Jutmil, Raigarh. District Raigarh C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/08/2026 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. 160/2026 registered at Police Station Jutmil, Raigarh. District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5), 118(2), of BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.05.2026, the complainant, Girdhari Chauhan went to the house where his wife Hemlata Chauhan was residing with their minor son. At about 11:00 p.m., co-accused Mukesh Kurre was present there, and both the accused allegedly abused and threatened the complainant. Thereafter, Mukesh Kurre assaulted him with a hard/sharp object, causing serious injuries to his hands, wrist and head, resulting in loss of consciousness. During investigation, the medical examination and X-ray revealed a fracture of the hand bone, and the head injury was considered serious, requiring referral to Raipur. Accordingly, offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5) and 118(2) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were registered. The prosecution alleges that applicant, Hemlata Chauhan, being a co-accused, was involved in the incident. 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 present applicant is the wife of complainant and the injuries sustained by the injured are found to be simple in nature. The applicant is in jail since 27.06.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its 3 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. She further submits that the applicant, Hemlata Chauhan, is alleged to have abused and threatened the complainant along with co-accused, Mukesh Kurre, who thereafter assaulted the complainant with a hard/sharp object, causing injuries to the injured. The applicant is alleged to have shared common intention with the co-accused in the commission of the offence therefore, she 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 27.06.2026, the fact that though the applicant is alleged to have abused and threatened the complainant along with co- accused, Mukesh Kurre and shared common intention in the commission of the offence, wherein the complainant sustained serious injuries, but considering the fact that the injuries sustained by the injured is found to be simple in nature and has no criminal antecedent, the 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. 4 8. Let the Applicant-Hemlata Chouhan, involved in Crime No. 160/2026 registered at Police Station Jutmil, Raigarh. District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5), 118(2) 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 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 5 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