1 2026:CGHC:19965 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3869 of 2026 Devendra Singh @ Somu Sardar S/o Late Balwinder Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o - Bombay Aaws, Urla, Durg, Police Station - Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) (Details Of Applicant Properly Not Mention In Cause Title Of Impugned Order Sheet) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - S H O, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.04.2026 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. 192/2025 registered at Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, Durg, District - Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(1), 351(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109 and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 25 & RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the night of 05.05.2025 at about 10:30 PM, the main accused Lingaraj along with four other co-accused persons, all allegedly armed with knives, forcibly entered the house of the complainant, dragged the victim, who was sleeping on the bed, by his hair and took him out onto the street. It is alleged that they threatened the victim, stating “how dare you call me, today we will kill you,” and abused him in obscene language. Thereafter, the main accused Lingaraj along with another co- accused assaulted the victim Pranshu and his friend Jassu by punching them and inflicting injuries with a sharp-edged weapon on their head and lower body. The incident was eventually pacified due to the intervention of the complainant’s husband, and upon gathering of a crowd, the accused persons fled from the spot on a motorcycle and a scooter. The injured persons sustained serious injuries on vital parts of their bodies. Based on the report of the complainant, the police registered an offence vide Crime No. 192/2025 (Annexure A/2) under Sections 296, 115(1), 351(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 333 of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act (corresponding to Sections 294, 323, 506, 146, 147, 149, 307 and 452 IPC) against the present applicant and other co-accused persons. Hence, this 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 3 the applicant has not participated in the commission of the offence, and the main allegations are against the co-accused, particularly Lingaraj, who is alleged to have assaulted the victim with a knife, whereas the present applicant is merely alleged to have been present at the spot, and even the offence under Section 109 of the BNS is not attracted against him. It is also submitted that no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant and his name does not find mention in the FIR. The principal allegations and the injuries sustained by the victim are attributed to the co-accused persons, from whom the weapon has also been seized. It is further submitted that the injured, material witnesses, as well as memorandum and seizure witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court and have supported the prosecution case only against the main accused Lingaraj, and not against the present applicant. It is also contended that the only allegation against the applicant is that he caused a simple injury on the elbow of the victim, which is minor in nature. It is further submitted that as per the memorandum of the complainant and injured, the primary role is attributed to the co-accused who allegedly assaulted with a sword. It is also submitted that the trial is still in progress, and out of 22 witnesses, only 6 witnesses have been examined so far. It is further submitted that the applicant and the complainant are not known to each other. It is submitted that a co-accused, namely Vinay Baghel, has already been enlarged on second bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 1752/2026 vide order dated 19.02.2026, and the case of the present applicant 4 stands on similar footing, as neither the injured nor the material witnesses have made any specific allegations against him. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 07.05.2025, the 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 on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. She also submits that the present case involves a serious and violent offence wherein the accused persons, including the applicant, acted in furtherance of their common intention, forcibly entered the house of the complainant and brutally assaulted the victims with sharp-edged weapons, causing injuries on vital parts of their bodies. It is further submitted that the role of the present applicant cannot be segregated at this stage, as he was part of the unlawful assembly and actively participated in the commission of the offence. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner of assault, and the supporting statements of the injured and other witnesses, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that the applicant has two criminal antecedents, one of the year 2017 and another of the year 2024, which clearly reflects his criminal propensity. Hence, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though it is alleged that the applicant, along with the co-accused, participated in the commission of the offence and a knife has also been recovered from his possession, however, the principal and grievous role of assault is attributed to the main accused, particularly Lingaraj, while the role assigned to the present applicant appears comparatively limited. It is further noted that the injury attributed to the applicant is stated to be simple in nature, and the evidence of the injured as well as other material witnesses examined so far does not disclose any specific and overt act of serious assault by the present applicant. The trial is still in progress and out of 22 witnesses, only 6 witnesses have been examined including the injured and not supported the case, and therefore, the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. Moreover, the co-accused person, namely, Vinay Baghel, has already been enlarged on second bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1752/2026 vide order dated 19.02.2026, further the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, the present applicant has tww previous criminal antecedents which are of the years 2017 and 2024 and he is jail since 07.05.2025, the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Devendra Singh @ Somu Sardar, involved in Crime No. 192/2025 registered at Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, Durg, District - Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 6 296, 115(1), 351(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109 and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 25 & 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 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, 7 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 him 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