2025:CGHC:56107 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9307 of 2025 Umesh Banjare S/o Rohit Banjare Aged About 40 Years R/o Village-

Ghulghul, Police Station- Lawan, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Lawan, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

18.11.2025

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 87/2025 registered at Police Station - Lawan, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 109(1) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, on 20.02.2025 the complainant, Mannu Ram Ratre, lodged a complaint stating that on RAHUL DEWANGAN

15.02.2025 the present applicant and another co-accused asked

Digitally

signed by

RAHUL

DEWANGAN

him to consume liquor. When the complainant refused, the accused persons abused him in filthy language, threatened to kill him, and assaulted him with hands and fists. As the complainant tried to flee from the spot, the accused persons followed him and assaulted him with a pipe, due to which he sustained grievous injuries on his hand and wrist. During the course of investigation, the present applicant and co-accused were arrested. Hence, the present bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed or participated in any act constituting the alleged offences. It is argued that the evidence collected by the prosecution is not prima facie sufficient, particularly when the incident allegedly took place on 15.02.2025 while the complaint was lodged only on 20.02.2025, with no satisfactory explanation for the six-day delay in filing the FIR. It is further submitted that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to assault the complainant, and in fact, the complainant was allegedly assaulted by other accused persons. The applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion, though he was not present at the spot, and there is no direct evidence to establish his involvement. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, he is in jail since 23.07.2025 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 has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the applicant are grave and fully supported by the medical evidence. It is argued that the injured was assaulted with an iron pipe on the parietal region of his head, resulting in grievous injuries, including four fractures on the temporal bone, clearly reflecting the brutality of the attack. The prosecution case further shows that when the complainant refused to consume liquor, the applicant and the co- accused abused him, threatened to kill him, and thereafter chased and assaulted him, causing serious injuries to his hand and wrist as well. It is submitted that the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the manner of assault indicate a clear intention to cause serious harm. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the case diary particularly the specific allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, the injured has sustained grievous injuries, including four fractures on the temporal b