1 2026:CGHC:20285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2995 of 2026 1 - Sheikh Sufran @ Sonu S/o Sheikh Gufran (Wrongly Mentionaed As Sukhram) Aged About 23 Years R/o Taj Nagar, Near Mosque, P.S. Civil Line District- Raipur (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Pandri, District- Raipur (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sourabh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Supriya Upasne, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 30/04/2026 This is the Fourth bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS filed by the applicant seeking his release on regular bail in Crime No. 384/2023 registered at Police Station Pandri, Raipur for the offences punishable under Sections 294,307,34 of IPC. SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.05.02 12:03:39 +0530 2 2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.06.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3688/2024, wherein this Court, while dismissing the said application, directed the learned trial Court to expedite the trial of the case. Thereafter, the second bail application, being M.Cr.C. No. 3209/2025, was dismissed on 29.04.2025, taking note of the fact that charges had already been framed on 01.08.2024, notices had been issued to the witnesses, and subsequently, bailable warrants were also issued to secure their presence. Considering the efforts made by the trial Court towards expeditious disposal of the case, the said application came to be rejected. 3. The third bail application, registered as M.Cr.C. No. 578 of 2026, was taken up on 05.02.2026. However, none appeared on behalf of the applicant and, in the absence of representation despite repeated opportunities, and further in view of non-filing of the order-sheets reflecting the progress of trial, the said application was also dismissed. Thereafter, the present fourth bail application has been preferred. 4. As per the prosecution case, on 04.12.2023 at about 05:40 PM, while the complainant along with his brother Anand Verma was present near their shop at Jay Hind Chowk, Raipur, the accused persons, namely Sammi and Sufran, along with co-accused persons, arrived on a motorcycle. In furtherance of their common intention, they abused and threatened the complainant and his brother Aditya Verma, and thereafter assaulted Anand Verma with knives. It is alleged that multiple 3 blows were inflicted on vital parts of the body including the abdomen, chest and thigh, causing grievous injuries. When the complainant intervened, he too was assaulted. On alarm being raised, nearby persons gathered, upon which the accused fled from the spot. The injured was taken to the hospital, FIR was registered, and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although three earlier bail applications have been dismissed, the applicant has remained in custody since 05.12.2023 and, till date, not a single witness has been examined before the trial Court despite repeated issuance of summons and bailable warrants. It is further contended that the co- accused, namely Mehran Khan @ Shammi, has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 9588 of 2025, and the case of the present applicant stands on a similar footing. It is also submitted that there are as many as 12 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet and the trial is likely to take considerable time; thus, the applicant, having undergone incarceration of more than two years and four months, deserves to be released on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant had active participation in the commission of offence and had also assaulted the injured with a knife. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents, with four cases registered against him in the years 2020 and 2021, in connection with the offences under Sections 324 and 327 IPC as well 4 as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, which are still pending. Considering the nature of injuries and antecedents, it is contended that the applicant is not entitled to bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 8. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, and the material collected during investigation, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 05.12.2023 and not a single witness has been examined till date, and further considering that the co-accused Mehran Khan @ Shammi has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Though the applicant is stated to have criminal antecedents, the same, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be a sole ground to deny bail, particularly when the trial has not commenced even after a substantial period of incarceration. 9. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment on the dates fixed for recording of evidence when the prosecution witnesses are present before the trial Court. 5 (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In the event of his absence without sufficient cause, it shall be open to the trial Court to proceed against him in accordance with law under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, and if, in order to secure his presence, a proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear on the date specified therein, the trial Court bbye shall be at liberty to 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 (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge, and (c) recording of statement under Section 351 of the BNSS. In the event the trial Court finds that his absence is deliberate or without sufficient cause, it shall be open to the trial Court to treat such default as an abuse of the liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, it shall be open to the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the applicant in accordance with law. 10. Office is directed to forthwith transmit a certified copy of this order to the Court concerned for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge