1 CGHC010274462026 2026:CGHC:40492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6622 of 2026  Dhanshri Mahure @ Dhanna S/o Sudhakar Mahure Aged About 22 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, Near Canal Bhilai Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station, Chhawni, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.09 .2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 447/2025 registered at Police Station Chhawni, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 103, 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.08.2025, at about 7:30 PM, when the complainant Smt. Meena Rao and her son Sonu were near the street, the accused Sudhakar and his son Dhana, on account of previous enmity, abused and assaulted Sonu with a knife, causing injuries to him. Thereafter, Babu Rao/husband of the complainant with the help of Lalu, took SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.17 11:17:25 +0530 2 Sonu to the hospital, where he succumbed to death. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant on 22.08.2025, aforesaid offences were registered against the applicant and his father Sudhakar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant has been arrested only on the basis of suspicion. It is further argued by him that though there are eye-witnesses, but they have not supported the case of prosecution. He also submits that the complainant has been examined before the learned Trial Court and she has also not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 22.08.2025, charge-sheet has been filed and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion. He would pray for grant of bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava would submit that the allegation against the present applicant is serious in nature, he along with his father assaulted Sonu with a knife on account of previous enmity, resultantly, he sustained injuries and subsequently died during course of treatment and the matter is at the stage of trial. He would submit that instant application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. It is a well-settled principle of law that no mini-trial is permissible while considering a bail application. The reliability and credibility of the prosecution witness can be examined by the learned Trial Court. Though it is submitted that the complainant and eyewitnesses have not supported the case 3 of prosecution, but the credibility of their statements can be considered by the learned Trial Court during course of trial. At this stage, a detailed appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the present applicant, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant