1 CGHC010331692026 2026:CGHC:38603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8044 of 2026 Rohit Patel S/o Champat Patel Aged About 75 Years Caste Adhariya, R/o Village Rajpur Post Barnaidadar, Thana Basna, Tehsil Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Basna, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate For Objector/complainant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2026 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. 386/2026 registered at Police Station- Basna, District - Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.07.2026, the complainant, Mulchand Gautam, appeared at Police Station Basna and lodged a written report stating that at about 12:30 p.m., while he was getting a thorny branch of a Karan tree, which had bent towards the agricultural field, removed through his grandson Prakash Gautam, Rohit Patel (present applicant), along with his sons Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel and Aman Patel, came near him, abused him in filthy language, threatened to kill him and assaulted him with slaps and fists, as a result of which he fell to the ground. Upon this, his grandson Prakash Gautam called his family members, whereafter Rohit Patel, Devanand Patel, Devendra Patel and Aman Patel, acting in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Prakash Gautam, Hetram Gautam and Karan Gautam. It is further alleged that Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel, armed with tangias, assaulted Prakash Gautam, Hetram Gautam and Karan Gautam on their heads and faces with the intention of causing their death, thereby causing them serious injuries. It is alleged that the injured persons managed to flee from the spot and save their lives. Due to the assault, Prakash Gautam, Hetram Gautam and Karan Gautam were admitted to the hospital, while Amar Ram Gautam also sustained injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Crime No. 386/2026 was registered against the accused persons at Police Station Basna for offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation, on the basis of the evidence collected, the accused persons Rohit Patel, 3 Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel were duly arrested on 17.07.2026. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is a 75-year-old man and there is no specific allegation against him of assaulting any of the injured persons with an axe or any other weapon, neither the FIR nor the statements of the witnesses attribute any such overt act to the applicant. It is further submitted that the alleged incident occurred in front of the applicant’s house and the complainant party had come there in an aggressive manner and was carrying weapons, thereby indicating the possibility that they were the aggressors and had come prepared for an altercation. It is also submitted that the medical reports of the injured persons do not prima facie disclose injuries of such nature as to attract the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He further submits that the applicant’s daughter-in-law had also lodged a written complaint regarding the incident, but no offence was registered by the police against the members of the complainant party, a copy of the said complaint has been filed and marked as Annexure A/3. It is further submitted that the injured persons were discharged from the hospital within about three days and their injuries were not found to be dangerous to life. He also submits that one of the co-accused, namely Aman Patel, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 17.08.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.A. No. 1324/2026. He also submits 4 that the applicant is in jail since 17.07.2026, he has no previous criminal antecedents, 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 as well as learned counsel for the objector opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegation against the applicant and the other co-accused is serious in nature, as they, acting in furtherance of their common intention, allegedly assaulted the complainant party, during which the co-accused Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel are alleged to have inflicted blows with tangias on the heads and faces of the injured persons, causing them serious injuries. Learned counsel for the objector further submits that the applicant was also present at the spot and was a part of the unlawful assault, and merely because no specific allegation of causing injury with a weapon is attributed to him, his role in the incident cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage. It is further submitted that the incident resulted in injuries to multiple persons and the applicant cannot claim parity merely on the basis of the bail granted to co-accused Aman Patel, who has been granted anticipatory bail. However, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector could not dispute the fact that the applicant is aged about 75 years and that the specific allegation of assault with a tangia is attributed to his sons, namely Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel, and not to the present applicant. They nevertheless strongly oppose the bail application on the ground of the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the incident and pray for rejection of the bail application. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations and the material available on record, and further the fact that though the allegation is that the applicant, along with his co-accused sons, namely Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel, participated in the assault upon the complainant party, the specific allegation of causing injuries with a tangia/axe to the injured persons is attributed to Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel, and their role is thus distinguishable from that of the present applicant. It is also not disputed that the applicant is aged about 75 years and is in custody since 17.07.2026. The learned counsel for the objector has vehemently opposed the bail application, however, the objection does not outweigh the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, particularly the advanced age of the applicant and the absence of any specific allegation against him of inflicting weapon injuries. It is further relevant that co-accused Aman Patel has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2026 in M.Cr.C.A. No. 1324/2026. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, and keeping in view the applicant’s advanced age, his period of custody, and the distinction between his role and that of co-accused Devanand Patel and Devendra Patel, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Rohit Patel, involved in Crime No. 386/2026 registered 6 at Police Station- Basna, District - Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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. 7 (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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan