1 CGHC010333712026 2026:CGHC:38593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8041 of 2026 Saneet Lal Netam S/o Raju Ram Netam Aged About 27 Years R/o- Dodade, Police Station- Durgkondal, District- North Bastar Kanker, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Durgkondal, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Gajendra Prakash Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 15/2025 registered at Police Station - Durgkondal, District- North Bastar Kanker, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 27.03.2025 at about 3:30 p.m., at Village Dodade, the present applicant is alleged to have assaulted injured persons, namely, Mohantin Netam and Asaaro Bai, with a sharp-edged weapon, causing multiple injuries on RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 different parts of their bodies. It is alleged that, in a fit of anger, the applicant picked up a sharp-edged weapon kept at his house and assaulted both the injured persons. It is an admitted position on record that the applicant and the complainant party are members of the same family and that a long-standing dispute exists between the two families in relation to land over which Mohantin Netam had constructed her house. The FIR was lodged on the basis of a written complaint submitted by Surendra Netam, cousin of the applicant and son of injured Asaaro Bai, and the case was initially registered for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was registered on the date of the incident and the applicant was arrested on 28.03.2025. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet and the case has been registered. 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 and that the second bail application has been rejected by the learned trial Court without properly appreciating the material contradictions and admissions which have emerged during the course of the trial. It is submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 109 of the BNS, particularly the requisite intention or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, are not prima facie established, and the evidence on record, at best, indicates a sudden and unpremeditated altercation arising out of a long-standing family/property dispute. He further submits that the injured witness 3 Mohantin Netam has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not see who assaulted her under the Mahua tree and, upon turning around, merely saw two persons standing there, while witness Surendra Kumar Netam, son of injured Asaaro Bai, has also admitted that he did not actually witness the applicant assaulting Mohantin Netam and had only heard her cries and thereafter seen her injuries. It is further submitted that the forensic report does not conclusively connect the alleged seized knife/sickle with the injuries, as the blood stains on certain articles could not be grouped or species-identified and no control/sample blood of the applicant or injured persons was made available for comparison. He also submits that the alleged weapons are ordinary household/ agricultural implements and their availability at the applicant’s house does not indicate any premeditated intention to commit the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the prosecution case arises out of a long-standing land dispute between the two branches of the same family and that the material prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Out of 10 prosecution witnesses, 4 witnesses have already been examined and 1 witness has expired, notably, the complainant and the daughter of the injured persons have also been examined and cross-examined, thereby substantially reducing any possibility of the applicant influencing the prosecution evidence. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, he is in jail since 28.03.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take some time for its 4 conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there are serious and specific allegations against the present applicant. It is submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, as he is alleged to have assaulted the injured persons, namely, Mohantin Netam and Asaaro Bai, with sharp-edged weapons, causing multiple injuries to them. It is contended that the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence collected during investigation prima facie support the prosecution case and that the discrepancies or omissions pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant are matters for appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be conclusively considered at the stage of bail. She further submits that the alleged weapons were recovered from the possession of the applicant in connection with the offence. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available on record and and the fact that the allegation against the applicant is that, on 27.03.2025, during a dispute arising out of a long-standing family/property dispute, he assaulted injured Mohantin Netam and Asaaro Bai with sharp-edged weapons, causing multiple injuries to them. Although learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out 5 certain contradictions and admissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and has questioned the applicability of Section 109 of the BNS, such aspects relate to appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of consideration of bail. The prosecution has relied upon the statements of the injured witnesses, medical evidence and the alleged recovery of the weapons, which require proper appreciation during trial. It is true that out of 10 prosecution witnesses, 4 witnesses have been examined and 1 witness has expired, and the complainant as well as the daughter of the injured persons have already been examined and cross-examined, however, the examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses is still pending. Therefore, at this stage, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of the applicant influencing or otherwise affecting the remaining prosecution evidence cannot be said to be wholly unfounded. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 28.03.2025, but considering the seriousness of the offence alleged, the nature of injuries attributed to the applicant, the stage of the trial and the fact that substantial prosecution evidence is yet to be recorded, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Saneet Lal Netam, involved in Crime No. 15/2025 registered at Police Station - Durgkondal, District- North Bastar Kanker, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 6 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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 Rahul dewangan