1 CGHC010246572026 2026:CGHC:37885 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6200 of 2026 Raunak Kumar @ Gabru S/o Manoj Kumar Aged About 19 Years R/o- Ward No. 25, Sweeper Colony, Radha Krishna Ward, Mahasamund Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O8cer, Police Station- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 240/2026, registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the o>ence punishable under Sections 109, 119(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.05.2026, the elder brother of the complainant, namely Parmeshwar Gaharwar, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 had come to Mahasamund from Village Pilwapali along with his cousin sister, Kum. Neelam Kandoi, for her NEET examination. At about 11:00 a.m., the complainant received information that his brother had been assaulted with a knife by two unknown persons at Kilkari Garden, Mahasamund and was taken to the District Hospital, Mahasamund, for treatment. Upon reaching the hospital, the injured Parmeshwar Gaharwar informed him that at about 10:00–10:30 a.m., while he was sitting near Kilkari Garden, in front of Jama Masjid, along with Neelam Kandoi, two persons came there on a motorcycle. One of them remained standing near the motorcycle, whereas the other approached him and demanded money. When he stated that he had no money, the said person allegedly took out a knife and threatened him. The injured thereafter gave him Rs.200/- from his purse, but the accused demanded Rs.500/- and threatened to kill him if the amount was not paid. It is alleged that the accused thereafter attempted to assault him with the knife on his chest and, when he tried to stop the assault with his hand, he sustained injury on his left arm. On hearing the cries of Neelam Kandoi, both the persons Eed away on their motorcycle. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant, along with co-accused Deepak Yadav, had allegedly acted in a planned manner and demanded money from Parmeshwar Gaharwar by showing him a knife and thereafter assaulted him with the intention to cause his death. It is further alleged that both the injured Parmeshwar Gaharwar and his sister Neelam Kandoi identiFed the applicant and the co-accused during the identiFcation proceedings. 3 Accordingly, the o>ence was registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been Fled before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and the identiFcation proceedings were conducted without following the due procedure of law. He further submits that the applicant has neither committed nor participated in any act as alleged by the prosecution and the evidence collected during investigation is not su8cient to prima facie establish his involvement in the alleged o>ence. He further submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been Fled before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 06.05.2026. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has three previous criminal antecedents, which have been duly explained in Part-D of the bail application. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the present applicant, along with the co-accused, demanded money from the injured by showing him a knife and thereafter assaulted him. It is further submitted that, as per the MLC report, the injured sustained injury on his left arm. He further submits that the applicant has three criminal antecedents, which have already been explained in the bail 4 application. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant and his criminal antecedents, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and further considering that, as per the MLC report, the injury sustained by the injured is on the left arm, which is a non-vital part of the body and further considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, which are three in number and have been explained in the bail application, coupled with the fact that in the present case, charge- sheet has been Fled before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 06.05.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Raunak Kumar @ Gabru, involved in Crime No. 240/2026, registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the o>ence punishable under Sections 109, 119(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 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 Fle an undertaking to the e>ect 5 that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates Fxed 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 Fxed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su8cient 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 Fxed 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 Fxed 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 su8cient 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. O8ce is directed to send a certiFed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal