Khairthal Tijara (Alwar) (R.J.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 942 of 2025 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Mursleen Khan S/o Shri Asin Khan Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Dhumkad, P.S.- Kishangad, Distt. - Khairthal Tijara (Alwar) (R.J.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Pakhanjur, Distt.- North Baster Kanker, C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/02/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 147/2024 registered at Police Station Pakhanjur, Distt.- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) for the offence 2 punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.07.2024, Animesh Gharami and others were exporting artificial fertilizers in the Paralkot area. A truck with registration number RJ-11-9189 was seized at the Pakhanjur Upaj Mandi on suspicion, and upon examination, the fertilizers were found to be colored salt. The present applicant was arrested on 06.01.2025, at his residence in Rajasthan by the Pakhanjur Police Station. It is alleged that the applicant was driving the truck with registration number RJ-11- 9189 and had come to Pakhanjur to deliver artificial fertilizers from Rajasthan. Although there is no named FIR against the applicant, the police have registered a case and arrested the applicant for his alleged involvement in the commission of the offense. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that seven of the co-accused persons, namely, Daulat Singh, Animesh Gharami, Shiv Kishan Gurjar, Omprakash Bhadana, Vinod Kumar Jain, Vinay Kumar Jain and Upkar Jain have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024, 25.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 04.12.2024, 06.12.2024 and 10.12.2024 in MCRC Nos. 7940/2024, 8132/2024, 8362/2024, 8442/2024, 8532/2024 and 8643/2024, respectively and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co- accused persons. The applicant is in jail since 06.01.2025, the 3 applicant has no criminal antecedent, 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 applicant. 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. He further submits that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons indulged in distributing large quantity of substandard fertilizer to farmer of Chhattisgarh, which has a negative impact on the fertility of the land, but it is also possible that the food products produced from it may have adverse effects on human health, therefore, the applicant is 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 applicant since 06.01.2025, the fact that though the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons indulged in distributing large quantity of substandard fertilizer to farmer of Chhattisgarh, but seven of the co-accused persons, namely, Daulat Singh, Animesh Gharami, Shiv Kishan Gurjar, Omprakash Bhadana, Vinod Kumar Jain, Vinay Kumar Jain and Upkar Jain have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024, 25.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 04.12.2024, 06.12.2024 and 10.12.2024 in MCRC Nos. 7940/2024, 8132/2024, 8362/2024, 8442/2024, 8532/2024 and 8643/2024, respectively and the case of present applicant is similar to that of 4 the co-accused persons, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant-Mursleen Khan, involved in Crime No. 147/2024 registered at Police Station Pakhanjur, Distt.- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61 of BNS and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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. 5 (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 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil