Chattisgarh High Court
Vijay Kumar Gond vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13178
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2589 of 2026
Vijay Kumar Gond S/o Chumman Lal, Aged About 19 Years R/o- Vill.
Rudgaon, Tah. And P.S. Dongargaon, Dist. Rajanandgaon (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.) Police
Station - Dongargaon, District Rajanandgaon- (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
19.03.2026
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. 32/2026 registered at Police Station - Dongargaon, District Rajanandgaon, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 109, 3(5), 191 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the FIR lodged, on RAHUL DEWANGAN 26.01.2026, the victim, Gaindu Ram Sonkar, had gone to attend a Digitally signed by festival/feast along with his friend Abhay Sonkar. It is alleged that RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 during the said event, an altercation arose on account of exchange of abusive and obscene language, which was objected to by Khimesh Thakur, leading to a confrontation between the parties. It is further alleged that thereafter, Khimesh Thakur, along with co- accused Trilokchand, Prem Patel, Pankaj Nishad and others, returned to the spot and assaulted the victim with a knife and clubs, causing grievous injuries to him. Subsequently, the present applicant came to be arrested in connection with the said offence. Hence, this bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that out of total 07 accused persons, 3 are juvenile offenders and the present applicant has no role in the alleged incident. It is contended that the applicant was not named in the FIR and the specific allegation of assault with a knife has been attributed to co-accused Khimesh Thakur. It is also submitted that no seizure or recovery of any kind has been made from the possession of the applicant. She further submits that at the time of filing of the charge-sheet, the name of the applicant has been subsequently introduced on the basis of a supplementary statement (poorak kathan) along with an affidavit dated 17.02.2026. It is thus contended that there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to the present applicant and his implication appears to be solely on account of the involvement of the juvenile co-accused, one of whom is related to the applicant. She further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, he is in jail since 3 22.02.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, she 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 there are serious and specific allegations against the present applicant. It is submitted that though the name of the applicant was not mentioned in the FIR, the same was lodged by the father of the victim, who was not an eye-witness to the incident. It is further submitted that after the victim was discharged from the hospital, his statement under Section 183 of the BNSS was recorded, wherein the victim has specifically stated that the present applicant had also assaulted him. It is contended that there are total 7 accused persons involved in the offence. It is further submitted that the victim initially remained admitted in the District Hospital and thereafter was shifted to a private hospital for further treatment. The medical evidence reveals that the injuries sustained by the victim are grievous in nature, including as many as 5 incised wounds, with a serious knife injury on the chest. In view of the gravity of the offence and specific role attributed to the applicant. 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, the nature of allegations and the material available on record, this Court finds that though the name of the present applicant was not mentioned in the FIR, the same was lodged by the father of the victim, who was not 4 an eye-witness. Subsequently, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS specifically attributes a role to the present applicant in the assault. It is further evident that there are total 07 accused persons involved in the offence and the victim has sustained grievous injuries, including 5 incised wounds, with a serious knife injury on the chest. The victim was initially admitted to the District Hospital and thereafter shifted to a private hospital for further treatment, which reflects the severity of the injuries. In view of the specific allegations made by the injured victim, the gravity of the offence and the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant - Vijay Kumar Gond, involved in Crime No. 32/2026 registered at Police Station - Dongargaon, District Rajanandgaon, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 109, 3(5), 191 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, is rejected.
8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul dewangan