SANEET LAL NETAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010333712026 2026:CGHC:38593

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8041 of 2026
Saneet Lal Netam S/o Raju Ram Netam Aged About 27 Years R/o-
Dodade, Police Station- Durgkondal, District- North Bastar Kanker, (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Durgkondal, District- North
Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Gajendra Prakash Sahu, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
01.09.2026
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. 15/2025 registered at Police Station -
Durgkondal, District- North Bastar Kanker, (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 27.03.2025 at about 3:30
p.m., at Village Dodade, the present applicant is alleged to have
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
assaulted injured persons, namely, Mohantin Netam and Asaaro
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Bai, with a sharp-edged weapon, causing multiple injuries on

2
different parts of their bodies. It is alleged that, in a fit of anger, the
applicant picked up a sharp-edged weapon kept at his house and
assaulted both the injured persons. It is an admitted position on
record that the applicant and the complainant party are members of
the same family and that a long-standing dispute exists between the
two families in relation to land over which Mohantin Netam had
constructed her house. The FIR was lodged on the basis of a
written complaint submitted by Surendra Netam, cousin of the
applicant and son of injured Asaaro Bai, and the case was initially
registered for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was registered on the date
of the incident and the applicant was arrested on 28.03.2025. Upon
completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet
and the case has been registered. Hence, the present bail
application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and
that the second bail application has been rejected by the learned
trial Court without properly appreciating the material contradictions
and admissions which have emerged during the course of the trial.
It is submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 109 of the
BNS, particularly the requisite intention or knowledge that the act
was likely to cause death, are not prima facie established, and the
evidence on record, at best, indicates a sudden and
unpremeditated altercation arising out of a long-standing
family/property dispute. He further submits that the injured witness

3
Mohantin Netam has admitted in her cross-examination that she did
not see who assaulted her under the Mahua tree and, upon turning
around, merely saw two persons standing there, while witness
Surendra Kumar Netam, son of injured Asaaro Bai, has also
admitted that he did not actually witness the applicant assaulting
Mohantin Netam and had only heard her cries and thereafter seen
her injuries. It is further submitted that the forensic report does not
conclusively connect the alleged seized knife/sickle with the
injuries, as the blood stains on certain articles could not be grouped
or species-identified and no control/sample blood of the applicant or
injured persons was made available for comparison. He also
submits that the alleged weapons are ordinary household/
agricultural implements and their availability at the applicant’s
house does not indicate any premeditated intention to commit the
alleged offence. It is further submitted that the prosecution case
arises out of a long-standing land dispute between the two
branches of the same family and that the material prosecution
witnesses have already been examined. Out of 10 prosecution
witnesses, 4 witnesses have already been examined and 1 witness
has expired, notably, the complainant and the daughter of the
injured persons have also been examined and cross-examined,
thereby substantially reducing any possibility of the applicant
influencing the prosecution evidence. He further submits that the
applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, he is in jail since
28.03.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the
competent Court and the trial is likely to take some time for its

4
conclusion. Therefore, he 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 the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, as
he is alleged to have assaulted the injured persons, namely,
Mohantin Netam and Asaaro Bai, with sharp-edged weapons,
causing multiple injuries to them. It is contended that the
prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence collected during
investigation prima facie support the prosecution case and that the
discrepancies or omissions pointed out by learned counsel for the
applicant are matters for appreciation of evidence during trial and
cannot be conclusively considered at the stage of bail. She further
submits that the alleged weapons were recovered from the
possession of the applicant in connection with the offence.
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
and gravity of the allegations, the material available on record and
and the fact that the allegation against the applicant is that, on
27.03.2025, during a dispute arising out of a long-standing
family/property dispute, he assaulted injured Mohantin Netam and
Asaaro Bai with sharp-edged weapons, causing multiple injuries to
them. Although learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out

5
certain contradictions and admissions in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses and has questioned the applicability of
Section 109 of the BNS, such aspects relate to appreciation of
evidence and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of
consideration of bail. The prosecution has relied upon the
statements of the injured witnesses, medical evidence and the
alleged recovery of the weapons, which require proper appreciation
during trial. It is true that out of 10 prosecution witnesses, 4
witnesses have been examined and 1 witness has expired, and the
complainant as well as the daughter of the injured persons have
already been examined and cross-examined, however, the
examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses is still pending.
Therefore, at this stage, the apprehension expressed by the
prosecution regarding the possibility of the applicant influencing or
otherwise affecting the remaining prosecution evidence cannot be
said to be wholly unfounded. The applicant has been in judicial
custody since 28.03.2025, but considering the seriousness of the
offence alleged, the nature of injuries attributed to the applicant, the
stage of the trial and the fact that substantial prosecution evidence
is yet to be recorded, 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 – Saneet Lal Netam,
involved in Crime No. 15/2025 registered at Police Station -
Durgkondal, District- North Bastar Kanker, (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is
rejected .

6
8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make
an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as
possible within a period of three months from the receipt of a
certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no
legal impediment.
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