1 2026:CGHC:16380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3195 of 2026 Mohit Gupta @ Babu Gupta S/o Shri Mohan Gupta, Aged About 28 Years R/o Kuan Chowk Nandai, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Kotwali, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.04.2026 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. 753/2025, registered at Police Station - Kotwali District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 296, 326(F) of BNS and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Divesh Rangari, lodged a report before the Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), with the averment that on 08.12.2025 at about 08:00 PM, he along with his friend Honey Chaure had gone to the chicken/mutton market for purchasing chicken. At that time, between 09:00 PM to 10:00 PM, a quarrel was allegedly taking place between an unknown person and an auto driver in the market area. The complainant and his friend allegedly intervened in the said dispute, upon which the said unknown person became aggressive, abused them and allegedly took out a sharp-edged knife and threatened to kill them. It is further alleged that the said person attacked the complainant and his friend with the knife, due to which they tried to flee from the spot, leaving behind the applicant's Activa bearing registration No. CG 08 BC 0229. The prosecution further alleges that the said person chased the complainant and his friend while hurling abuses and subsequently assaulted the complainant near Sahu's paan stall by catching hold of his collar and inflicting repeated knife blows with an intention to cause his death. During the course of the incident, the complainant sustained injuries, including a grievous injury near his private part. It is further alleged that the complainant somehow managed to escape from the spot with the intervention of his friend and thereafter went to Basantpur Hospital for medical treatment, where he was examined by the doctor. On the basis of the said report, the police registered an offence and arrested the accused. After completion of the 3 investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the prosecution story is highly one-sided, not reflecting the true sequence of events, and the possibility of exaggeration and false implication cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that as per the FIR itself, the incident initially arose out of a quarrel between an unknown person and an auto driver and the complainant had voluntarily intervened in the said dispute, therefore, the subsequent allegations appear to be an afterthought and suffer from material contradictions. It is also submitted that the alleged incident took place in a crowded market area between 09:00 PM to 10:00 PM, yet no independent witness has been cited by the prosecution to support the version of the complainant, which renders the case doubtful. It is further contended that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed and no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required therefore, further detention of the applicant is not justified. It is also submitted that the applicant has already undergone more than four months of incarceration without commencement of the trial. It is further submitted that the alleged knife has not been seized from the conscious and exclusive possession of the applicant, as the prosecution itself alleges that the same was recovered from the house of the applicant. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is submitted that the applicant has five criminal antecedents, out of 4 which in four cases he has been acquitted and only in one case, for the offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC, he has been convicted, however, he is on bail. It is also submitted that the victim/complainant has filed a submission before the learned trial Court stating that on behalf of complainant, an application of no objection to the grant of bail has been filed and it has been disclosed that there is no subsisting dispute between the complainant and the applicant at present and that both the complainant and the accused have entered into a compromise outside the concerned trial Court, voluntarily and without any fear, pressure or inducement. It is lastly submitted that in the present case the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, the applicant prays for grant of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the objector/complainant submits that the complainant has already filed a no objection application before the learned trial Court stating that there is no subsisting dispute between the parties and that the matter has been amicably settled between the complainant and the applicant without any fear, pressure or inducement and therefore, he has no objection if the applicant is granted bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present case involves a serious offence wherein the complainants have sustained grievous injuries, which clearly reflects the violent nature and gravity of the act alleged against the applicant. It is further submitted that the alleged 5 weapon of offence, i.e., a button knife used in the incident, has been duly seized from the present applicant during the course of investigation. She further submits that although the learned counsel for the complainant has filed a no objection to the grant of bail, the same cannot be a determinative factor for this Court while considering the bail application in a case of such serious nature involving grievous injuries. It is also contended that the applicant has a long criminal history, having as many as 19 criminal antecedents, out of which only 5 cases have been explained in paragraph No. 4(a) of the bail application, while the remaining cases have not been explained at all. Thus, the applicant is a habitual offender and does not deserve the indulgence of this Court. It is further submitted that in the event of being released on bail, there is a strong likelihood that the applicant may tamper with the prosecution evidence, influence or intimidate the witnesses, particularly the complainant and other material witnesses and may again indulge in similar criminal activities, thereby adversely affecting the fair conduct of the trial. Hence, she prays for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has assaulted the complainants by button knife on account of which they sustained grievous injury, coupled with the material collected during the course of investigation and the seizure 6 of the weapon of offence i.e. button knife from the present applicant, which prima facie supports the prosecution version at this stage and further taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there exists a reasonable apprehension that if the applicant is released on bail he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and influence or intimidate the complainant and other material witnesses, thereby adversely affecting the fair trial of the case and although the complainant has filed no objection stating that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, the same cannot be made the sole basis for grant of bail in a case of such serious nature involving grievous injuries and further considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant which are stated to be 19 in number out of which only 5 have been explained in paragraph No. 4(a) of the bail application while the remaining have not been explained, as such, the present applicant is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Mohit Gupta @ Babu Gupta, involved in Crime No. 753/2025, registered at Police Station - Kotwali District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 109(1), 118(1), 296, 326(F) of BNS and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. 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 Kunal