HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR vs State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. City Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon

: Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board

14.11.2025

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 338/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109 of the BNS & 25/27 of the Arms Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 04.07.2025 the 2 father of the injured lodged a complaint at the concerned police station stating that on the same day, while he was present in his locality, he received a phone call from his elder informing him that his son, Mahfuj Sheikh, had been assaulted at Rajnandgaon and was admitted to the hospital. Immediately thereafter, he reached Pendri Hospital, Rajnandgaon, where he found his son injured and under treatment. The injured informed him that he had gone to meet his friend Shailendra at Triveni Sangam, where they had an argument with Nikhil Ramteke. After that, he visited the Court, and while returning home, at about 4:30 PM near Pyarelal Chowk under the overbridge, two motorcycles arrived carrying Sohel Miya, Kastu Sahu, Bhaskar Khan, Takhs Pitar, Maruf Khan, and Nikhil Ramteke. It is alleged that Sohel, Maruf, Bhaskar, and Kastu alighted from the motorcycles, picked up a quarrel with him, and assaulted him with a knife. Based on this information, Crime No. 338/2025 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act against the applicant and others. Hence this bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent, has no role in the alleged offence, and has been falsely implicated on the basis of frivolous and concocted allegations. He further submits that as many as 06 persons were named in the FIR and out of which, 03 persons have already been granted bail 3 by the trial Court. It is argued that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, as the incident allegedly occurred on 04.07.2025 at about 4:00 PM, whereas the report was lodged only on

05.07.2025. Learned counsel submits that the injured, Mahfuj Sheikh, is a habitual offender and could have sustained injuries elsewhere, raising serious doubt about the prosecution version. The medical documents reveal that although the injured sustained four stab injuries on the right buttock and one lacerated wound below the right nostril, the doctor has not opined the injuries to be dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature, nor has the prosecution produced any medical opinion supporting the invocation of Section 109 BNS. So far as crimnal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is also submitted that though four cases were previously registered against him, no offence has been registered since 2022, demonstrating that he is not a habitual offender. The applicant has been in judicial custody since

05.07.2025, and as the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, continued incarceration would serve no purpose, making him entitled to grant of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that case diary clearly show that on

04.07.2025 the complainant found his son Mahfoos Sheikh admitted in Pendri Hospital with stab injuries, who disclosed that the applicant/accused Bhaskar Khan, along with co-accused, intercepted him near Pyarelal Chowk under-bridge and, after an 4 altercation, the present applicant assaulted him with a knife with intent to kill. The applicant is specifically named in the FIR as well as in the statement of the injured under Section 183 BNSS, and on the basis of his memorandum, the knife used in the offence has been recovered. The medical opinion confirms that the seized knife could cause the injuries, which were dangerous to life.

5. It is further submitted that though co-accused Taksh Peter, Nikhil Ramteke and Kaushlendra @ Kastu Sahu have been granted bail by this Court, the said benefit was extended on distinct grounds namely, that the injured in his police statement did not attribute any overt act to accused Taksh Peter and Nikhil Ramteke and no incriminating material was recovered from the possession of co- accused Kaushlendra @ Kastu Sahu. Therefore, their cases stand on a completely different footing and cannot be treated as similar to that of the present applicant, against whom direct allegations and recovery of the weapon exist.

6. The State Counsel further submits that the applicant/accused has a criminal history, with previous cases registered against him under Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act; Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC; Sections 327, 506, 427 IPC; and proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. The offences alleged in the present case are grave, serious, and non-bailable in nature, involving a coordinated assault with deadly weapons. In view of the direct allegations, recovery of the weapon used, the medical opinion, and the 5 applicant’s criminal antecedents, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Perusal of the case diary, FIR, medical report, and statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS, this Court finds that the present applicant Bhaskar Khan is specifically named as an assailant who inflicted knife injuries on the injured Mahfoos Sheikh. The injured has consistently attributed a direct overt act to the applicant both in the FIR and in his subsequent statement, and the recovery of the knife at the instance of the applicant under his memorandum further strengthens the prosecution case. The medical opinion prima facie indicates that the injuries sustained were dangerous to life and could have been caused by the seized weapon. Although certain co-accused have been enlarged on bail, their cases are clearly distinguishable as no overt act or weapon recovery was attributed to them. The applicant also has criminal antecedents, and the offences alleged are grave, non-bailable, and involve use of a deadly weapon. Considering the nature of accusations, supporting material on record, and the potential threat to witnesses, this Court does not find any ground to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.

9. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – Bhaskar Khan involved in Crime No. 338/2025 registered at 6 Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109 of the BNS & 25/27 of the Arms Act, is rejected at this stage.

10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.

11. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Manpreet Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice