1 CGHC010380872026 2026:CGHC:42285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9162 of 2026 1 - Nemnath Yogi S/o Late Motinath Yogi, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Mohgaon, Thana - Pipariya, Distt - Kabirdham (C.G.) ...Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pipariya, Distt. - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. R.S. Baghel, Advocate along with Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 29.09.2026 1) This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 25/2026, registered at Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3) & 109(1) of BNS. Earlier first bail application of the applicant bearing MCRC No.3966 of 2026 was rejected on merits vide order dated 30.04.2026. 2) The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 26.01.2026, during a domestic 2 dispute, the applicant/accused Nemnath Yogi assaulted his wife, and when the complainant/injured Gangotri Yogi intervened, he abused, threatened and assaulted her with a sickle (hansiya), causing grievous injuries on her head, arm, cheek and neck. The complainant was hospitalized from 26.01.2026 to 05.02.2026 for treatment. During investigation, the blood-stained clothes and weapon of offence, i.e., iron sickle, were seized at the instance of the accused. The medical report indicates that the injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon and were grievous in nature. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested in connection with the afore-stated offence. Hence, the present bail application. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would further submit that there was a quarrel between the applicant and his wife and, when his sister intervened, the applicant assaulted her with a sickle, causing injuries on non-vital parts of her body. He would contend that, though the injuries are shown as grievous in the MLC report, considering their dimensions, they are simple in nature. It is contended that earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits in MCRC No. 3966 of 2026. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 31.01.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the present applicant. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed. She would further submit that the applicant assaulted the complainant with a sickle, 3 causing multiple grievous injuries on vital parts of her body, including the head, neck and arm, as reflected in the MLC report. She would contend that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits and there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 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 offence, the material available in the case diary, and the fact that the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the complainant with a sharp-edged weapon, i.e., a sickle, after abusing and threatening her, and inflicted multiple injuries on vital parts of her body, including the head, neck and arm, with an intention to cause her death, which injuries have been found to be grievous in nature as per the MLC report, and further considering that his first bail application was rejected on merits by a detailed order passed in MCRC No. 3966 of 2026, this Court is of the considered view that no change in circumstances has been shown so as to take a different view from the one taken earlier. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha