MCRC/9226/2026 of ANAND CHURA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 14 October 2026

1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as he is in jail since 11.07.2026 in connection with Crime No. 425/2026 registered in Police Station – D.D. Nagar, District Raipur (CG) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 296 & 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that a written complaint lodged by the wife of victim-injured, namely Pawan Kumar Lalwani, to the effect that on 09.07.2026, at about 06:30-07:00 pm while her husband was travelling on his scooty towards Lakhe Nagar, Raipura Road and when he reached near Pahuja Brothers, Sundar Nagar, 04 persons riding on

two motorcycles stopped him and started abusing and quarelling with him over an allegation of careless driving. When the victim objected, the said persons threatened to kill him. Thereafter one of the 04 person i.e. present applicant assaulted him with a sharp edged weapon inflicting injury on the left side of his chest. When the injured/victim attempted to save himself, the accused persons again attacked him on his knee, due to which he fell down and sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter he was taken to the hospital for treatment. On such complaint, the police registered the offence as stated above.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. He would contend that there are total 04 accused persons, out of which 03 have already been granted bail by the Court below. He would submit that the charge- sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 11.07.2026. Thus, he would pray for grant of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/non- applicant would submit that there are 05 criminal antecedents of the applicant, in which 03 cases are live and in 02 cases, he has been acquitted on account of compromise, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant deserves to be rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. In the present bail application, the applicant has 05 criminal antecedents. Nonetheless, the primary objectives of examining an accused person's criminal antecedents during bail proceedings are: • To assess the likelihood of compliance with bail conditions and ensure the accused will not flee or jump bail;

• To determine whether there is a habitual pattern of committing similar or grave offenses; and • To evaluate the risk of evidence tampering, obstruction of the ongoing investigation, or witness intimidation. The existence of 03 pending criminal antecedents of an identical nature underscores a persistent pattern of offending, raising a grave apprehension of offense repetition if he is enlarged on bail.

7. Also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents.

8. Having considered the fact that the applicant has 03 live criminal antecedents of the similar nature, the manner in which offence was committed, nature of injuries sustained by the injured- Pawan Kumar Lalwani, the MLC report, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

Judge vatti