Chattisgarh High Court
Yuvraj @ Deep Singh Rajput vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12704
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2487 of 2026
Yuvraj @ Deep Singh Rajput S/o Rajkishore Aged About 21 Years R/o
Bajrang Chowk, Tulsipur, Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon
(C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station
Digitally
AKHILESH signed by
Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
KUMAR AKHILESH
DEWANGAN KUMAR
DEWANGAN
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/03/2026
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. 742/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 119(1), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 and 27 2 of Arms Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.12.2025 at about 10:30 PM, the complainant, Prakash Rajput, after closing his shop, was returning home when accused Yuvraj Singh along with other co- accused persons intercepted him, threatened him with a knife and demanded Rs.10,000/-. Upon his refusal, they allegedly snatched his mobile phone and assaulted him with hands, fists, sticks and a knife, causing injuries. It is further alleged that the complainant was wrongfully confined throughout the night and threatened with dire consequences. On the basis of a written complaint, Crime No. 742/2025 has been registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act. 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 injuries sustained by the injured were caused by a sharp-edged weapon, i.e., a knife, which was seized from the possession of the co-accused, Lokesh Yadav and in contrast, a wooden stick (danda) has been seized from the possession of the present applicant, and as per the MLC report, no injury attributable to the said wooden stick has been found on the person of the injured. The applicant is in jail since 09.12.2025, the applicant has three criminal antecedents of the years 2022, 2023 and 2024, out of which in case of 2022 applicant has already been acquitted vide judgment dated 28.10.2024 and rest of the two cases 3 are pending, further 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 along with other co-accused persons, allegedly intercepted the complainant, threatened him with a knife, demanded money, and upon refusal, assaulted him with hands, fists, sticks and a knife, caused grievous injuries to the injured, and also participated in snatching his mobile phone and wrongfully confining and threatening him. Furthermore, the applicant has three criminal antecedents of the years 2022, 2023 and 2024, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.
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 05.09.2023, the fact that though the applicant along with other co-accused persons, allegedly intercepted the complainant, threatened him with a knife, demanded money, and upon refusal, assaulted him with hands, fists, sticks and a knife, caused grievous injuries to the injured, but considering the fact that the injuries sustained by the injured were caused by a sharp-edged weapon, i.e., a knife, which was seized from the possession of the co- accused, Lokesh Yadav and in contrast, a wooden stick (danda) has 4 been seized from the possession of the present applicant, and as per the MLC report, no injury attributable to the said wooden stick has been found on the person of the injured, hence, the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused, Lokesh Yadav, who assaulted the injured by knife, also considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, which are three in number of the years 2022, 2023 and 2024, out of which, in case of 2022 applicant has already been acquitted vide judgment dated 28.10.2024 and rest of the two cases are pending, further the 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. Let the Applicant-Yuvraj @ Deep Singh Rajput, involved in Crime No. 742/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 119(1), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of 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 5 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 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