[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sumeet Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15386
NAFR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
Digitally HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
MCRC No. 2978 of 2026
Sumeet Nayak S/o Mulayam Singh Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No.
3, Rajhara, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of
Police Station Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.04.2026
1.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail
to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
392/2025 registered at Police Station Rajhara, District- Balod
(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 296,
351(3) read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the FIR was lodged by the
complainant, Chumman Thakur, wherein it has been alleged that on
18.12.2025 at about 03:00 PM, while he was sitting at the School
Ground, the present applicant along with his associates arrived at
the spot and threatened the complainant to withdraw the earlier FIR
lodged against him. When the complainant refused to withdraw the
said complaint, the applicant became aggressive and attempted to
assault him. However, the complainant managed to evade the
attack. It is further alleged that upon intervention by Narayan Netam
and Ankit Yadav, who came forward to rescue the complainant, the
applicant, armed with a knife, assaulted both of them. As a result of
the said assault, Narayan Netam sustained grievous injuries,
whereas Ankit Yadav also suffered injuries, the nature of which
could not be conclusively determined at that time, as the X-ray
report was awaited. The aforesaid acts of the applicant clearly
demonstrate his violent conduct and intention to cause serious
harm. Based upon such, aforesaid offences were registered against
the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
further submitted that, as per the prosecution case, the applicant is
alleged to have assaulted two injured persons with a knife, as a
result of which they sustained injuries. It is stated that the injured,
namely Narayan Netam, sustained an injury on his abdomen, while
the other injured, Ankit Yadav, sustained injuries on his right thigh
and right hand. Learned counsel further submits that the present
applicant and the injured persons, namely Ankit Yadav and
Narayan Netam, have sworn affidavits before the learned trial Court
stating that they have no objection if the applicant is released on
bail. The said fact is also reflected in the order sheets of the trial
Court at pages 13 and 14 of the bail application. It is also submitted
that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 18.12.2025 and
that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent
Court. With regard to the criminal antecedents of the applicant,
learned counsel submits that the applicant has two antecedents,
which have been duly explained in paragraph 4(A) of the bail
application. Considering that the trial is likely to take a considerable
period of time for its conclusion, he prays for grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for
grant of bail and submits that the applicant has committed a serious
and grave offence. It is further submitted that the applicant
assaulted the injured persons with a knife, causing grievous injuries
to one of the victims, which clearly reflects his violent conduct and
criminal intent. She further submits that despite having criminal
antecedents, the applicant has again indulged in similar unlawful
activities, which shows his propensity to commit offences. It is also
contended that the affidavits allegedly filed by the injured persons
stating no objection to the grant of bail do not dilute the gravity of
the offence, as the same is an offence against society at large. It is
further argued that, if released on bail, there is a likelihood that the
applicant may influence the witnesses and tamper with the
prosecution evidence. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity
of the offence, as well as the conduct of the applicant, she prays for
rejection of the bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, particularly the fact that, as per the prosecution case, the
present applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured persons,
namely Narayan Netam and Ankit Yadav, with a knife, as a result of
which Narayan Netam sustained an injury on his abdomen and
Ankit Yadav sustained injuries on his right thigh and right hand,
however, it is also noteworthy that both the injured persons have
voluntarily entered into a compromise with the applicant and have
sworn affidavits before the learned trial Court stating that they have
no objection if the applicant is released on bail, which is duly
reflected in the order sheets of the trial Court, further considering
that the applicant is in judicial custody since 18.12.2025, the
charge-sheet has already been filed and no further custodial
interrogation is required and that the trial is likely to take
considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the considered
view that it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
8. Let the applicant, Sumeet Nayak, involved in Crime No. 392/2025
registered at Police Station Rajhara, District- Balod (C.G.), for the
offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 296, 351(3) read with
Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 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
his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient
cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal
