1 CGHC010332992026 2026:CGHC:41158 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7993 of 2026 1 - Nandlal Agariya S/o Late Ghata Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Bhagwatpur, P. S. Shankargarh, District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kartik Agariya S/o Nandlal Agariya Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Bhagwatpur, P. S. Shankargarh, District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S. H. O., P. S.- Shankargarh, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. MCRC No. 8414 of 2026 Savita Agariya W/o Nandlal Agariya, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bhagwatpur Police Station And Tehsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj C. G. ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S. H. O. Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj C. G. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri, Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board 22/09/2026 1. Since the above two bail applications are arising out of same crime number, same police station and same offence so they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Applications under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.61/2026, registered at Police Station Shankargarh, District: Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118, 333 and 3(5) of BNS. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.05.2026, complainant/injured Tildev Agariya lodged a written report at Police Station Shankargarh stating that some unknown person had damaged certain chilli plants standing in the field of his elder brother Nandlal Agariya. It is alleged that Nandlal Agariya, suspecting the complainant to be responsible for the said act, called his nephew Narayan Agariya and asked him to inform his grandmother that her son Tildev would either survive or die. Thereafter, at about 9:10 p.m., Nandlal Agariya, along with his wife Savita Agariya, Kartik Agariya and Gokul Agariya, allegedly came to the complainant's house, abused him in filthy language and 3 threatened to kill him. It is further alleged that Kartik Agariya assaulted the complainant/injured with a tangi, while Nandlal, Gokul and Savita assaulted him by fists and blows, as a result of which the complainant/injured became unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, the complainant allegedly found his wife Nirmala lying unconscious in the verandah of the house with bleeding injuries on her head. Accordingly, aforementioned offences were registered against the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would further submit that the complainant party and the applicants belong to the same family and on account of a land dispute, a quarrel took place between the family members. He would further submit that the injuries sustained by injured Tildev and Nirmala are simple in nature. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicants are in custody since 11.06.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Accordingly, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that applicant-Savita has one previous criminal antecedent registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. She would further submit that injured Tildev sustained three injuries, including an injury over the occipital region, which was grievous in nature, whereas injured Nirmala sustained a fracture of the left parieto- 4 temporal bone, which, as per the medical report, is also grievous in nature. She would contend that looking to the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail and the bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and the material available on record. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations alleged against the applicants, the fact that the dispute appears to have arisen amongst the family members and the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicants are in custody since 11.06.2026 and also considering the fact that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, thus without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants deserve to be released on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail applications of the applicants are allowed. It is directed that in the event of the applicants executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) they shall not act in any manner which will be 5 prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, & (iii) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Kunal