1 CGHC010349372026 2026:CGHC:42397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8611 of 2026 1 - Ritik Kumar Sagar S/o Rohit Kumar Sagar Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Kodebod And Chowki Birejhar, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chowki Birejhar, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 29.09.2026 1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.169/2025, registered at Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2), 103(1), 191(1), 191(3), 331(B), 109(1), 332( A) of BNS, 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 2 2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.06.2025 at about 11:00 p.m., the applicant along with co-accused persons entered the complainant’s house, abused the family members and assaulted Ranjeet Navrenge, Jitendra Navrenge and Shekhar Navrenge with wooden sticks. It is further alleged that at about 1:00 a.m., they again entered the complainant’s house and assaulted Ranjeet Navrenge, Komal Navrenge and other family members with wooden sticks and a knife. Co-accused Satyam Nagarchi allegedly inflicted a knife injury on Komal Navrenge, who succumbed to injuries. Accordingly, an FIR was registered on 29.06.2025 for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the bail application. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that though the applicant was named in the FIR but he did not participate in the commission of the crime. He would further submit that no Test Identification Parade was conducted and most of the witnesses have not identified the present applicant. He would also contend that no article or weapon was seized at the instance of the present applicant. He would further contend that there was a dispute between the injured witnesses and the deceased intervened, and no common intention to commit the murder of the deceased can be attributed to the applicant along with the co-accused persons. It is also argued that some of the witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. He would submit that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 30.06.2025. Therefore, he would pray for grant of bail to the applicant. 3 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that the present applicant, along with six other co-accused persons, forcibly entered the house of the complainant at about 11:00 p.m. on 28.06.2025 and assaulted the family members. He would contend that some of the family members sustained serious injuries and were taken to the hospital. Thereafter, at about 1:00 a.m. on 29.06.2025, the present applicant again entered the house of the complainant and assaulted the deceased with a knife, hands, fists and a wooden club, resulting in the death of Komal Navrenge. He would further submit that the injured witnesses, namely, Bisni Bai, Malti Navrenge, Shekhar Navrenge, Jitendra Navrenge, Ramesh Navrenge and Manjeet Navrenge, have named the present applicant. Therefore, 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 the present applicant, along with other accused persons, entered the house of the complainant and assaulted the deceased with a knife, wooden club, hands and fists, and further considering that the injured witnesses have categorically named the assailants in their statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, and when there is direct evidence against the applicant, the motive becomes irrelevant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. 7) It is a well-settled principle of law that, while considering a bail application, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or undertake a 4 detailed examination of the evidence. The reliability and credibility of the witnesses are matters to be assessed by the learned Trial Court during the course of trial. 8) Having considered the manner in which the offence was committed and the direct evidence available in the case diary against the present applicant and other co-accused, the eye-witnesses/injured witnesses, namely, Bisni Bai, Malti Navrenge, Shekhar Navrenge, Jitendra Navrenge, Ramesh Navrenge and Manjeet Navrenge have categorically named the present applicant in their statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS. They have also stated that the present applicant along with other accused persons assaulted the deceased and other members of the family using a wooden club, knife, hands and fists. The medical report supports the ocular evidence. Thus, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha