1 2026:CGHC:16194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 976 of 2026 Dinesh Sahu S/o Shree Rajulal Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Villge Madhiyapar, Thana Bori, Distt. Durg Chhattigarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bori, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Uttam Pandey alongwith Smt. Pooja Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) For Objector : : Mrs. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. Mr. Vinod Kumar Dewangan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08/04/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 135/2025, registered at Police Station- Bori, District- Durg (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(1), 115(2), 3(5), 109 of BNS, MADHURIMA THAKUR Digitally signed by MADHURIMA THAKUR Date: 2026.04.10 15:39:22 +0530 2 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, there existed a long-standing dispute between the complainant party and the family of the applicant regarding demarcation of land. On 03.10.2025, Patwari and Kotwar visited the spot for measurement of land and thereafter left. It is alleged that subsequently, the applicant along with his co- accused brother reached the spot, objected to the demarcation, and started abusing the complainant’s son Deepak Sahu. Thereafter, acting in furtherance of their common intention, the applicant allegedly assaulted the injured with a bamboo stick on his head, while the co-accused also assaulted him with a stick, causing injuries. Due to the assault, the injured sustained head injury and became unconscious. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to a family dispute relating to land. It is contended that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 03.10.2025. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is likely to take time. It is also argued that the medical report indicates only injury on the head and the injured has been discharged from the hospital. The applicant is a permanent resident and there is no likelihood of absconding. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant, along with co-accused, has committed a serious assault with intention to cause death. It is 3 further submitted that the injury sustained by the victim is grievous in nature as per the medical report, and there is a likelihood of repetition of the offence and influence over witnesses if the applicant is released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From the perusal of the case diary and documents, it appears that the incident arose out of a land dispute, however, the allegations against the applicant are specific and direct, attributing him the role of inflicting a blow on the head of the injured with a bamboo stick. The head being a vital part of the body, the nature of assault prima facie indicates intention or knowledge of causing serious harm, attracting the rigours of the alleged offences. The medical report annexed with the charge-sheet reflects that the injured sustained serious injury on the head, which cannot be termed as trivial in nature. The manner of assault, the weapon used, and the part of the body targeted prima facie indicate the gravity of the offence. At this stage, though the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed, the same by itself is not sufficient to enlarge the applicant on bail, particularly when the prima facie involvement of the applicant is evident from the statements of witnesses and material on record. Further, considering that the incident took place in the background of an ongoing land dispute between the parties, the possibility of 4 reoccurrence of such incident or influencing the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out at this stage. The nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of commission, the specific role attributed to the applicant, and the seriousness of the injury sustained by the victim, do not persuade this Court to take a lenient view in favour of the applicant. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has not made out a case for grant of bail at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant- Dinesh Sahu involved in Crime No. 135/2025 under aforesaid sections at Police Station Bori, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, is rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the Trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously as soon as possible in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. 10. It is made clear that the observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of rejecting bail application. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Madhurima