Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 298 of 2025 Tanveer Ansari S/o Tahir Ansari Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kalhepath, Police Station Senha, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand. versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.01.2025 Order on Board RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.15 11:36:57 +0530 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 67/2024, registered at Police Station : Bagicha, District Jashpur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 379/34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Ramdas Ram, is employed as a Roller Helper in the Public Works Department. Approximately 8–9 months prior to 12.04.2024, a 2 government road roller (Registration No. DRR 23740) was being driven from Sarbkombo to Bagicha when it broke down near Bhitghara Bayoratoli and was parked on the roadside. On 18.03.2024, while traveling to his village, Lambasingha, the complainant noticed the roller still parked by the roadside. However, on 05.04.2024, while returning from his village, he found that the roller was no longer there, having been stolen by unknown persons. The complainant informed the SDO about the theft and lodged a report at Bagicha police station. A case was registered against unknown persons, and an investigation was initiated. During the investigation, the accused, Tauhid Khan, was arrested, and in his memorandum statement, he revealed that he, along with the other accused, Tanveer Ansari and Jilani Ansari, had brought a crane from Ambikapur, loaded the road roller onto a truck, transported it to Jharkhand, and sold it at a junk shop. Tauhid Khan further disclosed that of the amount received, he spent Rs. 8,500 on food and drinks and retained Rs. 500, which was later seized from him. Based on his memorandum statement, co-accused persons, Jilani Ansari and Tanveer Ansari, were charged under Sections 379 and 34 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the present applicant has been arrested on the basis of the memorandum statement of main accused, namely, Tauhid Khan. He further submits that the present applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. He also submits 3 that the present applicant is in jail since 17.10.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant along with the other accused, persons had brought a crane from Ambikapur, loaded the road roller onto a truck, transported it to Jharkhand, and sold it at a junk shop. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the present applicant along with the other accused, persons had brought a crane from Ambikapur, loaded the road roller onto a truck, transported it to Jharkhand, and sold it at a junk shop, but the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and no criminal antecedents against the present applicant and the applicant is in jail since 17.10.2024, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Tanveer Ansari, involved in Crime No. 67/2024, registered at Police Station : Bagicha, District Jashpur, (C.G.) for 4 the offence punishable under Section 379/34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of 5 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan