1 2026:CGHC:13242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1993 of 2026 1 - Sanjog Surya S/o Late Ramprasad Surya Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 36, Siddharth Nagar, Behind Kali Mandir, Durg, Police Station City Kotwali Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Aisha @ Bhuri D/o Late Rajesh Aged About 18 Years 03 Months R/o Ward No. 36, Siddharth Nagar, Behind Kali Mandir, Durg, Police Station City Kotwali Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Deeksha Surya D/o Sanjog Surya Aged About 18 Years 02 Months R/o Ward No. 36, Siddharth Nagar, Behind Kali Mandir, Durg, Police Station City Kotwali Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Palak Thakur @ Prachi Thakur D/o Atmaram Thakur Aged About 18 Years 03 Months R/o Rajeev Nagar, Beside Pond, Police Station City Kotwali Durg District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station City Kotwali Durg District - Durg (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.03.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.20 13:04:24 +0530 2 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 612/2025 registered at Police Station - City Kotwali Durg District - Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 296, 351(3), 115(2), 191(2), 124(2), 133 of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Harishankar Manhare, lodged a written complaint at the concerned Police Station stating that there were complaints regarding the improper activities of a resident of his locality, namely Sanjog Surya (applicant No.1) and his daughters, pursuant to which a community meeting was organized on 01.12.2025 at about 7:00 PM in the courtyard of Kalimandir; during the said meeting, while instructions were being given by the members of the community, the applicants became agitated, started abusing the persons present there, and thereafter assaulted them with hands and fists as well as with a sharp object, and also allegedly threw acid, due to which several persons sustained injuries and one Nilesh Khandekar suffered inflammation and pain in his left eye; on the basis of the said incident, the complaint was lodged and an FIR came to be registered against the applicants, and the matter was taken up for investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are an innocent person and have been falsely implicated in this offence. It is further submitted that in the present case, as the prosecution has concocted a false story against them, who are poor villagers; that the applicants have neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offences, and even the material collected during investigation does not prima facie establish their involvement; 3 that neither applicant No.1 nor his daughters were engaged in any improper or objectionable activities, rather the complainant and other persons of the locality, under the guise of being responsible members of society, attempted to impose unwarranted restrictions upon them, and due to the vulnerable position of the family consisting mostly of female members, undue pressure was created, and during the meeting, the locality persons themselves initiated a dispute and misbehaved with the daughters of applicant No.1, which led to the incident and subsequent false implication; that the medical reports indicate only simple injuries and no grievous or dangerous injury has been caused to any person; that the allegation regarding use of acid is completely false, as the seized article is merely a toilet cleaner and not acid, and no burn injuries have been found on the injured, with only minor redness and congestion reported in the eye of the alleged victim without any loss of vision; that all the co-accused, except applicant No.1, are girls, further indicating the falsity of serious allegations; that most of the offences alleged are bailable in nature and Section 124(2) of BNS is not attracted in the present facts; that the applicants are in custody since 02.12.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude; therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances, the applicants pray that they be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicants and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed; he further submits that the present applicant allegedly assaulted the injured, resulting in grievous injuries, therefore, the present applicants are not entitled to be granted regular 4 bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the case diary, the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature. Moreover, the applicants have been in custody since 02.12.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Sanjog Surya, Aisha @ Bhuri, Deeksha Surya, Palak Thakur @ Prachi Thakur involved in Crime No. 612/2025 registered at Police Station - City Kotwali Durg District - Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 296, 351(3), 115(2), 191(2), 124(2), 133 of the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each 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 he 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 through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya 5 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 him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav