The High Court of Chhattisgarh on October 10, 2025, granted regular bail to 31-year-old Chandan Utkel, who had been in custody since July 14, 2025, in a case arising from an alleged stabbing at a family courtyard in Rajnandgaon district. The court said the injuries were simple in nature, the charge sheet has been filed, and the trial was likely to take time factors that weighed in favour of release on bail.
According to the first information report, a confrontation followed burial rites on July 13–14, 2025, when the applicant, said to be intoxicated, argued with relatives and allegedly stabbed his maternal uncle, Murti, in the abdomen; another relative was hurt while trying to intervene. The offences were registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Arms Act.
At the bail hearing, the applicant’s counsel argued that the parties are related by marriage, there was no previous enmity, the complainants had settled the dispute and did not wish to press the matter further, and no weapon was recovered from the applicant. The state opposed bail but the objector did not. The court noted the nature of the injuries, the period of detention, and the pending trial before directing the applicant’s release on furnishing personal bond and two sureties.
The court imposed specific conditions to protect the integrity of the trial. Mr. Utkel must undertake not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, remain available for every court date either personally or through counsel, and attend in person for critical stages of the trial such as framing of charge and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS. The order also warned that deliberate absence or misuse of bail could invite proceedings under the BNSS, including proclamation and proceeding for framing charges.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, directed the High Court registry to send a certified copy of the order to the trial court for compliance. The judgment records that the office copy was downloaded from the court repository and reflects standard judicial practice when custody has continued and the offence, as pleaded, does not indicate grievous injury that would justify continued detention pending trial.
Citation : 2025 Local Law (CG) 827
Case Details : MCRC No. 6350 of 2025, Chandan Utkel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents/Defendant: Ankita Shukla, P.L. and Kashish Saluja, Advocate
Acts/Rules/Orders: Arms Act 1959 – Section 25, Arms Act 1959 – Section 27; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (bnss) – Section 351, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (bnss) – Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (bnss) – Section 84; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (bns) – Section 109, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (bns) – Section 115(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (bns) – Section 209, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (bns) – Section 269, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (bns) – Section 296, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (bns) – Section 351(3); Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 294; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 307; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 323; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 506
