1 2026:CGHC:10768 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 63 of 2026 1 - Rameshwar Yadav S/o Ramnarayan Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Gobardaha, Police Station- Raghunathnagar, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Lalu Prasad S/o Ramdayal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Gobardaha, Police Station- Raghunathnagar, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Birendra Kumar S/o Ramnarayan Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Gobardaha, Police Station- Raghunathnagar, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station Raghunathnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.03.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 19/2025, registered at Police Station : Raghunathnagar District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296, 351(2), 115, 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicants were rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 6194/2025, 4292/2025, vide order dated 06.08.2025, on merits. Hence this second bail application. 3. Case of prosecution in brief is that, a report lodged by the complainant, Lalita Yadav, at Police Chowki Balangi, Raghunathnagar, stating that on February 22, 2025, around 1:00 AM, she and her husband, Rajesh Pal, were traveling on their motorcycle to her sister's house near Semar. The accused, Bhagwan Das Yadav and Birendra Yadav, began chasing them. Bhagwan Das hit her husband's hand with a stick, causing them to fall o< the motorcycle. The accused then allegedly assaulted her husband with sticks, threatening to kill him. When she intervened, the accused Ramanuj and Lalu also assaulted her with sticks on her head and hand. During the altercation, her child fell from her lap, and the accused allegedly snatched the child and threw it, hitting her on the head. When she tried to call for help, the accused Lalu threw away her phone. The accused ?ed the scene, believing her husband to be dead. She took her husband to Raghunathnagar Hospital and later to Baidhn for treatment. Based on her report, a case was registered against the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296, 351(2), 3 and 115. The investigation involved medical examination of the injured, recording witness statements, and seizing the sticks used in the incident. Additional charges under Section 109 of the IPC were added. The accused were arrested on di<erent dates, and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet was Cled. Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the earlier Crst bail applications of the applicants were rejected by this Court on merits, however, in the present second bail application, a new ground has been raised. It is submitted that on 28.02.2026 the case was listed before the trial Court for recording the cross-examination of the injured witness/complainant Ms. Lalita Yadav, but she did not appear before the trial Court and consequently a bailable warrant has been issued against her, as re?ected from the order-sheet Cled along with the covering memo. It is further submitted that the applicants have not committed any o<ence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The charge-sheet was Cled on 25.02.2025 and charges were framed on 04.07.2025, and thereafter the case was repeatedly Cxed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, however, the prosecution witnesses did not appear before the trial Court despite issuance of summons and bailable warrants, which itself shows that the FIR has been lodged only to harass the applicants. It is also submitted that on 17.11.2025 the complainant and her husband appeared before the trial Court and their examination-in-chief was partly recorded and an application under Section 351 of B.N.S. Cled on behalf of the applicants for 4 cross-examination was allowed, but thereafter the complainant and her husband did not appear before the Court for further examination. It is further submitted that the complainant is the cousin sister of the applicants and had earlier gone missing after marrying in another caste, for which a missing report was lodged on 05.05.2021, and the present FIR has been Cled due to a property dispute as she was denied her share. It is also submitted that the father of applicant Nos. 1 and 3 is su<ering from serious health issues and is undergoing treatment and there is no other male member in the family to look after him. It is further submitted that applicant No.3 is a student pursuing a Diploma in Electrical Engineering, but due to the present criminal case he is unable to continue his studies. It is lastly submitted that there is no material available in the charge-sheet or in the statements of the complainant and other witnesses to substantiate the allegations against the applicants therefore, the applicants pray for grant of bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. The assault was made on the injured and complainant during night hours, while the injured alongwith his wife and 5 months old child were going on the motorcycle, in which the complainant's husband su<ered grievous injuries and even the 5 months old child was thrown to the ground, who though su<ered simple injury. The acts attributed to the accused persons reveal a well-orchestrated attack. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail and the 5 Crst bail applications of the applicants have already been rejected by this Court on merits therefore, the present bail application is also liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the material available on record, the period of detention of the present applicants and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been Cled before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, and further considering the new grounds raised in the present second bail application regarding non-appearance of the injured witness/complainant before the trial Court despite issuance of summons and bailable warrant, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the present applicants is not warranted at this stage. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present bail application Cled by the applicants is hereby allowed. 8. Let applicants, Rameshwar Yadav, Lalu Prasad and Birendra Kumar, involved in Crime No. 19/2025, registered at Police Station : Raghunathnagar District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296, 351(2), 115, 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall Cle an undertaking to the e<ect that 6 they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates Cxed 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date Cxed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without suFcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date Cxed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates Cxed 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 applicants are deliberate or without suFcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 7 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court would make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certiCed copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 10. OFce is directed to send a certiCed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal