Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 878 of 2025 1 - Vinod Kumar Vasudev S/o Sukhiram Vasudeo Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Gadapali, Police Station Urga, District- Korba (C.G.) 2 - Santosh Kumar Gond @ Lutan S/o Sukulram Gond Aged About 45 Years R/o I.T.I. Rampur, Police Station Rampur, District- Korba (C.G.) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 3 - Vedprakash Vasudev @ Golu S/o Dhanpraad Vasudev Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Gadapali, Police Station Urga, District - Korba (C.G.) versus ... Applicant(s) State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Baradwar, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31/01/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for 2 grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 196/2024 registered at Police Station Baradwar, District- Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305(A), 331(3), 317(2), 61/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Firat Ram Sahu filed a report at Baradwar Police Station, alleging that on 12.08.2024, between 3:15 pm and 6:00 pm, an unknown person entered into his house in village Kesla, stolen Rs.185,000/- in cash and gold jewelry worth Rs.300,000/-, totaling Rs.485,000/-. Based on this, Baradwar Police Station registered a crime against an unknown person under Crime No. 196/2024, Sections 305(a) and 331(3) of the BNS. During the investigation, suspects Vinod Vasudev, Santosh Kumar Gond, Ved Prakash Vasudev alias Goloo, and Tilak Pawale confessed the commission of theft and sold the stolen gold jewelry to Deepak Soni's Jewelry Shop. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that there are 12 cases registered against the applicants, out of which, in two cases applicants have been granted bail by the trial Court and in six cases other co-accused persons have been granted bail by the trial Court. He also submits that is no any seizure of ornaments nor cash amount has been made from the present applicants, only one screw driver has been seized from them, which shows that applicants 3 have no role in this case, further the co-accused, namely, Deepak Soni has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2025 in MCRC No.758 of 2025 and the case of present applicants is similar to that of the co-accused person. The applicants are in jail since 30.10.2024, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicants have committed theft of Rs.185,000/- in cash and gold jewelry worth Rs.300,000/-, totaling Rs.485,000/- in the house of complainant, further there is seizure of Rs.12,000/- from applicant No.1, Rs.13,000/- and one motorcycle, which was used in the incident from applicant No.2 and Rs. 10,000/- and one motorcycle, which was used in the incident from applicant No.3, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants since 30.10.2024, the fact that though the applicants have committed theft of Rs.185,000/- in cash and gold jewelry worth Rs.300,000/-, totaling Rs.485,000/- in the house of complainant, further there is seizure of Rs.12,000/- from applicant No.1, Rs.13,000/- and one motorcycle, which was used in the incident 4 from applicant No.2 and Rs. 10,000/- and one motorcycle, which was used in the incident from applicant No.3, but one of the co- accused persons, namely, Deepak Soni, who was the purchaser of said stolen articles, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2025 in MCRC No.758 of 2025 and the case of present applicants is similar to that of the co-accused person, further charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants-Vinod Kumar Vasudev, Santosh Kumar Gond @ Lutan and Vedprakash Vasudev @ Golu, involved in Crime No. 196/2024 registered at Police Station Baradwar, District- Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305(A), 331(3), 317(2), 61/3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil