1 CGHC010360992026 2026:CGHC:43269 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8876 of 2026  Vikas Kumar Khursenga S/o Narayan Singh Khursenga Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kodar, Thana Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, P.L. 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 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.225/2026, registered by Police Station Pali, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 296, 115(2) and 351(3) of Bhartiya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 2) The prosecution story in brief, on 19.06.2026, the complainant lodged a report to the effect that at around 5:00 PM that day, Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.10.07 10:42:31 +0530 2 applicant arrived at his residence in intoxicated state and hurled abuses. When he, his brother, and his brother-in-law (Kanhaiya Lal) attempted to stop him, applicant assaulted Kanhaiya Lal on his back with a knife, causing injury. On the basis of complainant, police registered offence as stated-above and arrested the applicant. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case as he did not participate in the commission of the afore-stated offence. He further submits that applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has been filed and he is in jail since 25.06.2026 conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is a direct allegation against the applicant to the effect that he assaulted Kanhaiya Lal using a knife. She further submits that Kanhaiya Lal suffered multiple injuries, including a 4 x 5 cm cut injury over the buttock region, a 1 x 0.5 cm cut injury over the back of the neck, and an injury over the cervical region. Hence, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) The medical records in the case diary show that the applicant 3 caused multiple knife injuries to Kanhaiya Lal, notably to the buttock, the back of the neck, and the cervical region. Conversely, the applicant contends in this bail application that he has been falsely roped in due to pre-existing animosity between the parties. 7) It is a settled principle of law that the Court’s role at the bail stage is confined to verifying the existence of a prima facie case. In the present case, an FIR was lodged against the applicant making specific allegations to the effect that he assaulted Kanhaiya Lal using a knife, causing multiple injuries; however, the veracity of the allegations made in the FIR cannot be examined in light of the defence taken by Mr. Pandey. 8) Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant at this stage. 9) Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a