[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
