1 2026:CGHC:20255 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2894 of 2026 Rekha Sona W/o Chandan Sona, Aged About 28 Years R/o -Street No. 06, Block 9/b, Servant Quater, Bhilai, Police Station- Bhilai- Bhilai Nagar District Durg (Chhattisgah) (Details Of Applicant Properly Not Mention In Cause Title Of Impugned Order Sheet) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) (Details Of Non-Applicant Properly Not Mention In Cause Title Of Impugned Order Sheet) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.04.2026 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. 539/2025 registered at Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 109, 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Section 25(1-B)(B) & 27 of the Arms Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report stating that on 13.10.2025 at about 11:00 P.M., the present applicant along with two co-accused persons came to the complainant’s house and knocked on the main door, which was opened by the victim, namely Chandan Sona. Thereafter, the co- accused persons, namely Vikas Tandi and Jassu Tandi, forcibly entered the house and started abusing the victim, and with an intention to cause his death, assaulted him with a sharp-edged weapon, inflicting blows on his head and behind his ear. It is further alleged that when the complainant and his family members intervened, the assault was stopped, but the victim sustained serious injuries on vital parts of his body. On the basis of the said report, the police registered an offence vide Crime No. 539/2025 against the applicant and co-accused persons for aforesaid offences. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no knowledge of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the applicant has not participated in the commission of any offence and the specific allegation of assault is attributed to the co-accused persons, who are alleged to have used a sharp weapon, whereas the present applicant is only alleged to have been present at the spot; therefore, the offence under Section 307 is not attracted against her and her case stands on a different footing from that of the co-accused. It is also contended that no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further submits 3 that the complainant, victim, and the accused persons are closely related family members, the applicant being the wife of the victim and the co-accused being his brothers, and due to existing family disputes, a minor quarrel has been given the colour of a serious offence, resulting in false implication. It is submitted that the injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature and, as per the medical evidence, the opinion of the doctor is reserved and does not conclusively support the prosecution case. It is further submitted that even as per the statements of the complainant and the injured, the main allegation is against the co-accused who allegedly assaulted with a sword. He also submits that the trial is in progress, material witnesses have already been examined, including the complainant, victim, and doctor, and they have not supported the prosecution case and there are material contradictions and omissions in their depositions. It is further submitted that the applicant and the complainant, being mother-in-law and daughter- in-law, are well known to each other and the case arises out of personal and family discord. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, is in jail since 14.10.2025 and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been submitted in the present case. He further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious 4 in nature, as she was present at the spot along with the co-accused persons and shared common intention in the commission of the offence, wherein the victim was assaulted with a sharp-edged weapon causing injuries on vital parts of the body. It is further submitted that merely because the specific role of assault is attributed to the co-accused does not absolve the present applicant from liability, considering her presence and active participation in the incident. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any leniency and the application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the material available on record, this Court finds that the specific and overt act of assault with a sharp-edged weapon is attributed to the co-accused persons, namely Vikas Tandi and Jassu Tandi, whereas the present applicant is alleged only to have been present at the spot without any specific role of causing injury. It is also pertinent that no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the allegations against her are general in nature, thereby making her case distinguishable from that of the co-accused who are attributed with the main act of assault. Further, the parties are closely related family members and the incident appears to have arisen out of a domestic dispute. This Court also takes note of the fact that during trial, the complainant, victim, and the doctor have already been examined and have not fully supported the prosecution case. 5 Further the fact that the applicant is in jail since 14.10.2025, has no criminal antecedents and the charge-sheet has been submitted, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail, and accordingly, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Rekha Sona, involved in Crime No. 539/2025 registered at Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 109, 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Section 25(1-B)(B) & 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on furnishing 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 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, 6 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. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan