1 2026:CGHC:6573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1292 of 2026 Chhotu Dhruw S/o Maniram Dhruw Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Mahamaya Para, Lormi, District- Mungeli C.G. (Note District Not Mentioned In The Order Sheet) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Lormi, District Mungeli C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Mahima Tandan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/02/2026 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. 604/2025 registered at Police Station 2 Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 126(2), 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), 111 of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the report lodged by complainant Kamal Kashyap on 28.10.2025 at Police Station Lormi, Crime No. 604/2025 was registered against the applicants/accused and other co-accused for offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The complainant stated that his younger brother Som Kashyap and cousin Kush Kashyap were running gupchup carts at different places in Lormi. On the evening of 28.10.2025 at about 6:15 P.M., while they were returning home with their carts near Kamal Kirana Store on Ranigaon Main Road, accused Vishal Dhruv and Prem Sarathi, along with other persons, arrived on motorcycles and an auto and wrongfully restrained them. It is alleged that accused Vishal Dhruv, armed with an iron rod, and Prem Sarathi, armed with a blade, abused the victims in filthy language, threatened them with death and assaulted Som Kashyap with the intention to kill, causing grievous injuries on his head. When Kush Kashyap intervened, he was also assaulted with an iron rod. Due to the assault, Som Kashyap sustained serious injuries, which were dangerous to life if not treated in time. During investigation, memorandum statements of the accused revealed that they were armed with deadly weapons and had acted in a pre-planned manner with the intention to commit 3 murder. On the basis of the material collected, the prosecution alleges the involvement of the applicants/accused in the commission of serious offences, and accordingly charge was registered and investigation carried out. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. She further submits that although it is alleged that the present applicant assaulted the injured with a knife and that a knife has been seized from his possession, however, the medical reports of the injured persons indicate that both the injured, namely Kush Kashyap and Som Kashyap, sustained injuries caused by hard and blunt objects, whereas the other co- accused persons are alleged to have assaulted them with such hard and blunt objects. She also submits that the present FIR has been lodged with a mala fide intention to take undue advantage against the applicant and his family members. It is contended that due to prior enmity, the family of the applicant had earlier lodged two FIRs against the complainant at Police Station Lormi, bearing Crime Nos. 117/2025 and 224/2025. Copies of the said FIRs are annexed herewith as Annexure A/3 (colly). The applicant is in jail since 28.10.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the allegation against the applicant is that, he along with co-accused, wrongfully restrained the victims and participated in a pre-planned assault by using deadly weapons, causing grievous and life-threatening injuries to Som Kashyap and as per medical report, the injured sustained life-threatening injury caused by hard and blunt object, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 28.10.2025, the fact that though the allegation against the applicant is that, he along with co-accused, wrongfully restrained the victims and participated in a pre-planned assault by using deadly weapons, causing grievous and life-threatening injuries to Som Kashyap, but considering the fact that the present applicant allegedly assaulted the injured with a knife and that a knife has been seized from his possession, however, the medical reports of the injured persons indicate that both the injured, namely Kush Kashyap and Som Kashyap, sustained injuries caused by hard and blunt objects, whereas the other co-accused persons are alleged to have assaulted them with such hard and blunt objects, 5 further considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Chhotu Dhruw, involved in Crime No. 604/2025 registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 126(2), 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), 111 of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act, 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 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 him 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 6 court shall initiate proceedings against him, 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 him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil