1 2026:CGHC:16165 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3162 of 2026 Gauri Mongraj D/o Sukhlal Mongraj Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Jawahar Para, Balod, Police Station - Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh (Details Of Applicant Properly Not Mention In Cause Title Of Impugned Order Sheet) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., Police Station Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, 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. 127/2026 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 121(1), 132, 221 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, the complainant lodged a report stating that she was on duty as a day officer at Balod Police Station from 19.03.2026 at 9:00 PM to 20.03.2026 at 9:00 AM. On 20.03.2026 at about 7:45 AM, upon receiving a hospital memo from the ward boy of ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.04.09 12:15:58 +0530 2 District Hospital, Balod, she proceeded to the hospital for verification of the memo. Thereafter, upon questioning the accused in different crime numbers, namely Hiteshwar Yadav, the complainant registered a case against other accused persons, namely Mayank Sahu, Om Singh Nishad, and Siddharth Mograj, under Section 109 of BNS. After returning to the police station, at about 8:54 AM, she was sitting with the staff members to record the return in the station diary. At that time, the present applicant, who is the aunt of co-accused Siddharth Mograj, entered the police station and started shouting that her sister’s son Siddharth had not committed any offence. She then began obstructing the complainant in the discharge of her duties and assaulted her by slapping her on the left cheek, which led to a quarrel between them. Based on the complainant’s report, the police registered an offence bearing Crime No. 127/2026, punishable under Sections 121(1), 132, and 221 of B.N.S., 2023. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the present applicant is not involved in the commission of any offence. It is alleged that she was present at the concerned police station only because an FIR had been lodged against her sister’s son, and she had come merely to inquire about the matter. He further submits that no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. The FIR contains general and omnibus allegations, and no specific overt act has been attributed to the accused. He also submits that the injuries alleged are simple in nature and have been exaggerated to attract stringent sections. There was no intention to deter a public servant from discharging official duties, and the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel and misunderstanding, as the police officers were allegedly trying to falsely implicate her sister’s son in a false case, and 3 the present applicant was merely trying to inquire into the matter from the concerned authorities. He further submits that the marriage of the present applicant is scheduled to commence from 20.04.2026, and if she remains in jail, her matrimonial life will be adversely affected, and the marriage may be cancelled. He further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 20.03.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has not been submitted in the present case before the competent Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, absence of any specific overt act attributed to the present applicant, the fact that no weapon has been recovered from her possession, and that the injuries alleged are simple in nature and further considering that though the charge-sheet has not yet been filed before the competent Court, the applicant is in custody since 20.03.2026 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, as also the fact that her marriage is scheduled to commence from 20.04.2026, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application. 7. Let the Applicant – Gauri Mongraj, involved in Crime No. 127/2026 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 121(1), 132, 221 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, 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 her in accordance with law. 5 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 Abhishek