1 2026:CGHC:20458 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4035 of 2026 Ravishankar Sahu S/o Shri Bhagirathi Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Resali Sector A-128, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01/05/2026 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. 130/2025 registered at Police Station Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable 2 under Sections 121(1), 132, 221, 119(2), 308, 109, 319, 336(3), 340, 61(2), and 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.12.2025, the complainant, a public servant, received a phone call from co- accused Rajnisha Verma, who informed him that although he had won a case in the Durg Court, she intended to challenge it before the High Court and proposed a meeting at Dantewada to amicably settle the matter. Acting upon this, on 19.12.2025, the complainant reached Dantewada Court in his official vehicle, where Rajnisha Verma met him and joined him in his vehicle for discussion. It is alleged that while they were proceeding towards Geedam Road, Rajnisha Verma threatened the complainant by placing a sharp- edged knife near his waist and demanded a sum of Rs.25 lakhs, threatening to either kill him or falsely implicate him in a murder case. During this time, she was also in contact with an unknown person over the phone. Shortly thereafter, near Anurag Hotel/TVS showroom, co-accused Ravishankar Sahu intercepted the vehicle, forcibly opened the door, and attacked the complainant with a sharp weapon with the intention to kill him. The complainant sustained serious injuries on his neck and chin while attempting to save himself, and a further attempt was made to assault him on his abdomen. With the help of passersby, the complainant managed to restrain one of the accused and was subsequently taken to the hospital. On the basis of his report, Crime No. 3 130/2025 was registered at Police Station Dantewada under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act, 1959. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants for committing the alleged offence. 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. He further submits that the medical report of the victim does not support the case of prosecution, their is only one injury caused to the victim on his face and there no chance of causing death by the said injury. He also submits that the present FIR has been falsely lodged as a counterblast to earlier proceedings, wherein the co-accused had filed an FIR against the victim alleging the offence of rape under Section 64(2)(f), 115(2), 151(2) of BNS, however, after full-fledged trial, the victim has been acquitted of the said charges. It is submitted that the co- accused has thereafter preferred an acquittal appeal bearing Acq. Appeal No. 429/2025 before the this Court, and upon gaining knowledge of the same, the present false FIR has been instituted with mala fide intention to harass and pressurize the applicant. The copy of the status report is filed herewith as Annexure A-3. He later submits that the applicant has been subjected to severe physical assault while in custody, allegedly on account of the victim being an S.D.O.P. in the police department, resulting in grievous injuries, for which he had to undergo hospitalization and 4 surgical intervention, the applicant is still undergoing treatment at a hospital in Raipur and his medical condition remains serious, requiring continuous and specialized care, which cannot be adequately provided in judicial custody. Therefore, considering his deteriorating health condition and on humanitarian grounds, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The relevant documents obtained under the Right to Information Act are annexed herewith as Annexure A/4 (collectively). The applicant is in jail since 20.12.2025, 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. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant allegedly in furtherance of their common intention, lured the complainant to Dantewada on the pretext of settling a dispute and thereafter threatened him at knife-point, demanding Rs. 25 lakhs, thereafter he along with co-accused persons, intercepted the complainant’s vehicle and assaulted him with sharp-edged weapons with the intention to kill, causing serious injuries. The acts attributed to the applicants indicate their active involvement in the commission of the offence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5 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 20.12.2025, the fact that though the applicant in furtherance of common intention, he lured the complainant to Dantewada on the pretext of settlement, threatened him at knife-point demanding Rs. 25 lakhs, and thereafter, along with co-accused persons, intercepted and assaulted him with sharp-edged weapons with intent to kill, causing serious injuries, but considering the fact that the present FIR appears to be a counterblast to earlier proceedings, wherein the victim had faced trial and was acquitted, as well as the attendant circumstances suggesting prior animosity between the parties, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out at this stage, it is also brought on record that the applicant himself sustained injuries and was subjected to medical treatment, indicating a version of reciprocal assault, further the the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed, 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. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Ravishankar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 130/2025 registered at Police Station Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 6 121(1), 132, 221, 119(2), 308, 109, 319, 336(3), 340, 61(2), and 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of the 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 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 7 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