1 CGHC010347172026 2026:CGHC:41758 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8308 of 2026 1 - Raj Dhruv S/o Hriday Dhruv Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Vermapara, Sejbahar Tehsil And District Raipur C. G. 2 - Ulleshwar Yadav S/o Rajendra Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward, No. 13, Durga Chowk Sejbahar, Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Mujgahan Raipur C. G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Shri Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.09.2026 Heard. 1) At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the bail application of applicant No.1 – Raj Dhruv. 2) No objection is raised by the other side. NIRMALA RAO 2 3) Permission is granted. 4) Accordingly, the bail application of applicant No.1 – Raj Dhruv is dismissed as withdrawn. 5) This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to applicant No.2, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.138 of 2026 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 109 and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 6) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the injured, Ashish Kosle, lodged a report on 17.6.2026 stating that on 16.6.2026 at about 22:30 hours, while he was consuming alcohol and eating biryani along with his friends at a public place, applicant No.1 – Raj Dhruv and his friends abused and assaulted him. It is alleged that Raj Dhruv inflicted injuries on the abdomen of Ved Prakash, on the left wrist of Agam Das, and on the right hand of Ashish Kosle, whereas applicant No.2 – Ulleshwar Yadav assisted him. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the aforesaid offences against the applicants. 7) Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the allegation against applicant No.2 – Ulleshwar Yadav is that he assisted the main accused while the latter was inflicting knife blows on the bodies of the injured persons. He would further submit that no article has been seized from the possession of applicant No.2 – Ulleshwar Yadav, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and he is in jail since 17.6.2026. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to applicant No.2. 3 8) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application. She would submit that applicant No.2 – Ulleshwar Yadav assisted the main accused – Raj Dhruv while he was inflicting knife blows on the bodies of three injured persons. She would contend that it is a case of common intention, wherein both the accused are equally liable for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 296, 109 and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act. She would, however, endorse the submission that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 17.6.2026. 9) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 10) Having considered the allegations made against applicant No.2 – Ulleshwar Yadav, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, that he is in jail since 17.6.2026, and that he has no criminal antecedents, and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant regular bail to applicant No.2 – Ulleshwar Yadav. 11) It is directed that in the event of applicant No.2 - Ulleshwar Yadav executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (b) he 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court; and 4 (c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi