1 CGHC010361752026 2026:CGHC:43257 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8868 of 2026 1 - Mukesh Kurrey S/o Rejesh Kurrey Aged About 23 Years R/o Harijan Mohalla, Ward, No. 09, Sapos, Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti, C. G. ----- Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order As Mukesh Kurre S/o Rajesh Kurre. Wrongly Mentoned In The Impugned Order As Rajesh Kurre. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station, Jutemil, Raigarh, District Raigarh, C. G. --- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr.Rajat Sharma, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 06.10.2026 1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.160/2026 registered at Police Station- Jutmil, Raigarh,District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5), 118(2) of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.05.2026, the complainant was allegedly abused, threatened and assaulted by the 2 applicant and co-accused Mukesh Kurre, resulting in injuries including a fracture and head injury. The prosecution alleges that the present applicant, being a co-accused, was also involved in the incident. Hence, the present bail application. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case. He would further submit that when the husband of the co-accused visited the house, the present applicant was present there, and a quarrel ensued, during which he sustained certain injuries. He would contend that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. It is also argued that the present applicant has no criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and he is in jail since 06.05.2026, thus, he would pray for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that the present applicant assaulted the injured with a hard and sharp iron object, resulting in grievous injuries to both wrists and the head. He would further submit that the injured sustained a fracture of the ulna bone of the right hand. He would, therefore, contend that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations against the present applicant, the fact that the co- accused has already been granted bail, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant is in jail since 06.05.2026, and further considering that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am 3 of the considered opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7) It is directed that in the event of the applicant 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:- (i) 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; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, & (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the 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 Rekha