Facts
The applicants filed their first bail application following their arrest on March 6, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 09/2026 registered at Police Station Rajim
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1The prosecution alleged that on January 3, 2026, the applicants verbally abused the complainant and assaulted him with hands, fists, and a knife
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2The defense contended that there were cross-reports of the incident indicating that both parties sustained injuries and noted that the charge sheet had already been filed
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3The objector expressed no objection to the grant of bail
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the existence of cross-FIRs and the filing of the charge sheet
Source reference: p. 2, para. 7Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power to grant bail
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 296 (obscenity/filthy language), Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation), Section 118(2) (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), and Section 3(5) (common intention)
Source reference: p. 2, paras. 1-2Section 269 of the BNS (non-attendance in obedience to an order) and Sections 84 (proclamation for person absconding) and 351 (evidence) of the BNSS
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 8Reasoning
The Court evaluated the entitlement to bail by balancing the nature of the allegations against the procedural status of the case. It observed that the incident involved a "free fight" scenario evidenced by cross-reports and injuries on both sides, which mitigates the unilateral culpability of the applicants at this stage
Source reference: p. 2, para. 7The Court further noted that the investigation concluded with the filing of the charge sheet, and since the applicants had been in custody since March 6, 2026, prolonged pre-trial detention was unnecessary given that the trial would take considerable time to conclude
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7Holding
The Court allowed the bail application, directing the release of the applicants upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties
The holding was conditioned upon the applicants' undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to remain present during critical trial stages (charge framing and statement recording). Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and proceed under Section 209 of the BNS or relevant provisions of the BNSS
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 8Original Court PDF
PRIYANSHU @ KHEMU SAHUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in