Lingraj Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 293/2026 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 132, 121(1) and 221 of BNS.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.04.2026, the complainant, a Constable posted at City Kotwali, Durg and deputed on Dial 112 duty, received information regarding a fight at Harinagar. Upon reaching the spot along with Dial 112 driver Bhupendra Sahu, the complainant was allegedly abused and obstructed in the discharge of his official duty by the present applicant, who despite knowing him to be a police official, threatened him and assaulted him on his head with a brick, causing a bleeding injury. Thereafter, aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. He would submit that injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature. It is contended that the incident was sudden and occurred in the course of a quarrel, without any premeditated intention on part of the applicant. He would also submit that charge-sheet has already been filed, applicant is in jail since 09.05.2026 and trial is likely to take some time. He would further submit that applicant has six criminal antecedents, two of them has already been disposed of and one on the basis of compromise. He would pray for grant of bail to the present applicant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and submit that the present applicant has six criminal antecedents, out of which two have been disposed of and one has been disposed of on the basis of compromise. He would further submit that the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the complainant, who was discharging his official duty as a police Constable and caused a bleeding injury on his head with a brick, therefore, instant application deserves to be rejected.

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

In the present bail application, the applicant has disclosed 6 criminal antecedents, pointing out that two cases have already been disposed of and out of two, one has been disposed of on the basis of compromise. 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 04 pending criminal antecedents underscores a persistent pattern of offending, raising a grave apprehension of offense repetition if he is enlarged on bail.

Having considered criminal antecedents of the present applicant, manner in which offence was committed and the injuries sustained, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, instant bail application is hereby rejected..