1 2026:CGHC:16166 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3160 of 2026 Digendra Sahu S/o Dageshwar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kokdi, Basti Para, P.S. Utai, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO, Utai (Wrongly Mentioned As Chawni In Bail Order) District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.04.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 04/2026 registered at Police Station – Through SHO Utai, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 324(1), 112 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 03.01.2026 at about 10:00 PM, the complainant, Tikam Sahu, was travelling on his motorcycle (sold Pulsar 160) along with Vedprakash from village Kokdi to attend a cultural event. At about 12:30 AM, while returning, when they reached near the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.04.10 11:17:53 +0530 2 sugarcane field (Baadi) where the accident had taken place, the complainant inquired about the incident. The persons gathered there informed them about the accident, and thereafter abused and assaulted them with an iron pipe, as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries on his hands, legs, and other parts of his body. Vedprakash also sustained injuries on his thigh, neck, and hand. Thereafter, a report was lodged, and hence, the applicant is alleged to have committed the said offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, thus, directly or indirectly, no role has been attributed to the applicant. He further submits that the co-accused, Jitendra Hirwani and Kundan, are alleged to have assaulted the injured persons and the complainant. Nothing has been seized from the applicant except his own mobile phone. He also submits that even the memorandum of the applicant was not recorded by the police. There are 10 accused persons in the present case, and the police have not conducted any identification parade to connect the applicant with the alleged crime. He submits that the charge sheet has been filed, and the injuries sustained by both persons are not on vital parts. Further, there is no allegation that the applicant assaulted the two victims. He submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 05.01.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the allegations against the applicant are that he, along with 09 other co-accused persons, assaulted the injured persons, namely Tikam Sahu and Ved 3 Prakash, with iron rods. As a result of the assault, injured Ved Prakash sustained grievous injuries to his head, while injured Tikam Sahu suffered injuries to his shoulder and neck. Therefore, it is contended that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned State Counsel and having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations against the applicant, this Court finds that the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, is alleged to have assaulted the injured persons with iron rods, resulting in grievous injuries to Ved Prakash and injuries to Tikam Sahu. The manner of the incident and the role attributed to the applicant reflect the seriousness of the offence. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. 8. Accordingly, the first bail application of the applicant – Digendra Sahu, involved in Crime No. 04/2026 registered at Police Station – Through SHO Utai, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 324(1), 112 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10.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 Abhishek