1 2026:CGHC:15385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2987 of 2026 Jeet Bharti S/o Gopichand Bharti Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Village- Chadmudiya P.S. Kurud, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.04.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 19/2026 registered at Police Station- Kurud, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 309(6) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at the concerned police station alleging, inter alia, that on RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the date of the incident a minor dispute arose between the applicant and the complainant, following which the applicant assaulted the complainant with a danda, used filthy language, and forcibly snatched the complainant’s mobile phone. As a result of the said incident, the complainant sustained simple injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered an offence against the applicant under Sections 126(2), 309(6), and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that at the time of the alleged incident only a minor dispute had arisen between the applicant and the complainant, and the applicant neither assaulted the complainant nor looted any article, as falsely alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that none of the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 309(6), and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are made out against the applicant. It is also contended that the prosecution has failed to collect sufficient material against the applicant and that the police did not conduct a proper investigation prior to registration of the FIR, and merely on the basis of suspicion the applicant has been falsely implicated and arrested. He further submits that the prosecution story is concocted and based on false and fabricated allegations without any cogent evidence. He also submits that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicant, except an amount of Rs.500/-, which does not substantiate the allegation of loot, and that 3 the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of a memorandum statement. It is thus submitted that, looking to the material available on record, no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. He further submits that the present applicant has no any previous criminal antecedents, the charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court, he is in jail since 21.01.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offences and the allegations against him are serious in nature. It is further submitted that there is sufficient material available on record against the applicant, which clearly establishes his involvement in the incident. She also pointed out that the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2025 in the similar nature, and therefore, considering the nature of allegations and his past conduct, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the dispute between the parties appears to have arisen out of a minor altercation and the injuries 4 sustained by the complainant are simple in nature. It is also noticed that no substantial incriminating material has been seized from the possession of the applicant except an amount of Rs.500/-, and the case rests primarily on the memorandum statement. Though the learned State Counsel has opposed the bail and pointed out one criminal antecedent of the year 2025, but also considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2026, the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Jeet Bharti, involved in Crime No. 19/2026 registered at Police Station- Kurud, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 309(6) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or 5 through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan