MANMATI BHUIYA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010390532026 2026:CGHC:45575
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9482 of 2026
 Manmati Bhuiya W/o Manoj Bhuiya Aged About 30 Years R/o
Ward No. 15, Ramanujganj P. S. Ramanujganj District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S H O. Ramanujganj District
Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Ms. Monika Thakur, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board
28.10.2026
1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under
Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant
of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime
No.140/2026, registered by Police Station Ramanujganj, District
Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 121(1), 132, 109 and 3(5) of
Bhartiya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2
2) The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11.08.2026, the
complainant Upendra Kumar Yadav, Forest Guard, lodged a
report to the effect that at around 05:45 AM that day, when Pintu
Malakar, Forest Guard, was en route to Aragahi Beat for duty, he
encountered the applicant and one Manoj Bhuiya carrying teak
logs. Upon being questioned, the accused persons hurled filthy
abuses and issued death threats to Pintu. They also threw a teak
log at Pintu, causing injuries to his head, neck, and left ear. On
the basis of the complaint, the police registered the offence and
arrested the accused persons, including the applicant.
3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a
lady and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as she
did not participate in the commission of the afore-stated offence
and the main allegation of assaulting the government servant is
against co-accused Manoj Bhuiya. He further submits that the
applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet
has been filed, and she has been in custody since 11.08.2026.
Since the conclusion of the trial may take some time, he prays for
the grant of regular bail to the present applicant.
4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail
application, submitting that the applicant and co-accused Manoj
Bhuiya, acting in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted
the Forest Guard while he was discharging his public duties. She
further submits that the medical reports indicate the injuries

3
sustained by the injured were grievous in nature, and as such, the
applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6) The case diary contains an injury report indicating that Pintu
Malakar sustained a lacerated wound over the left temporo-
occipital region. A subsequent CT scan revealed the following
findings:-
 A thin rim of extra-axial hematoma (maximum
thickness 2.3 mm) along the left temporal region with
focal air;
 A few small hemorrhagic contusions with edema in the
right temporal lobe; and
 Focal hemorrhage along the right transtentorial and
posterior falx
In addition, the District Medical Officer, upon requisition,
opined that considering the clinical and radiological findings, the
risk of death could not be ruled out had the patient not received
prompt medical attention.
7) It is a settled principle of law that the Court’s role at the bail stage
is confined to verifying the existence of a prima facie case. In the
present case, an FIR was lodged by a forest official against the
applicant making specific allegations to the effect that she and co-
accused Manoj Bhuiya, acting in furtherance of their common
intention, assaulted the Forest Guard while he was discharging

4
his public duties, causing multiple injuries; however, the veracity
of the allegations made in the FIR cannot be examined in light of
the defence taken by Mr. Pandey.
8) Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature of
injuries sustained by the injured and gravity of offence levelled
against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to extend the
benefit of bail to the applicant at this stage.
9) Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
A j i n k y a