1 CGHC010308702026 2026:CGHC:39648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7646 of 2026 1 - Vishal Yadav S/o Laxman Yadav, Aged About 19 Years Resident Of Ward No. 17, Tulsaghat Lormi, P. S. Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Rajkumar Yadav, S/o Shatruhan Yadav, Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Ward No. 17, Tulsaghat Lormi, P. S. Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Mukesh Singh Chauhan, S/o Ganga Singh Chauhan, Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Ward No. 17, Tulsaghat Lormi, P. S. Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicants Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/09/2026 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth ‘the BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who are in custody in connection with Crime No.01/2026 registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (CG) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 118(1), 109(1), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of Bhartiya Nyays Sanhita, 2023. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.09.11 11:33:42 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 30.12.2025 at around 10:00 pm, the present applicants along with 04 juvenile persons inflicted knife injuries to Kamlesh Yadav and Vishram Yadav. F.I.R. was lodged by Vishram Yadav on 01.01.2026 and resultantly F.I.R. was registered against all the accused persons for offences as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would contend that as per contents of F.I.R., injuries were inflicted by Rupesh Yadav and Mintu Goswami. He would further contend that knife was seized from the possession of juvenile-Rupesh Yadav. He would submit that though the injured sustained grievous injuries, but there is no any allegation that the present applicants either used any dangerous weapon or inflicted injuries. He would contend that in the present case, chargesheet has been filed and the applicants are in jail from 30.05.2026. He would pray to grant regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. He would submit that injured Kamlesh Yadav sustained fatal injury over vital part of the body and remained hospitalized for 16 days. He would contend that there is allegation against the present applicants that they assaulted the injured persons by using hands and fists. He would submit that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the fact that fatal injuries were inflicted by the juvenile Rupesh Yadav and Mintu Goswami and further knife was seized from exclusive possession of Rupesh Yadav, further the charge- sheet has been filed and the applicants are in jail from 30.05.2026, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 3 7. Accordingly, the instant bail application of the applicants is allowed. 8. Let the Applicants – Vishal Yadav, Rajkumar Yadav and Mukesh Singh Chauhan, involved in Crime No.01/2026, registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 118(1), 109(1), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of Bhartiya Nyays Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on each of them furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- “(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicants fail 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. 4 (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.” 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti