Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8686 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 980 of 2025 Tohid Khan S/o Basir Khan Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Kharwatoli, Police Station Narayanpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Laywer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.02.2025 1. Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel submits that he has filed memo of appearance today before the Registry and prays that he may be permitted to argue the matter on behalf of the applicant. 2. 3. Prayer made by Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate, is allowed. 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. 67/2024 registered at Police Station Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Ramdas 2 Ram, works as a Roller Helper in the Public Works Department. About 8-9 months before 12.04.2024, a government road roller (DRR 23740) broke down while being driven from Sarbkombo to Bagicha and was parked by the roadside near Bhitghara Bayoratoli. On 18.03.2024, while going to his village Lambasingha, he saw the roller still parked there. However, on 05.04.2024, while returning from the village, he noticed that the roller was missing, having been stolen by unknown persons. He informed the SDO and lodged a complaint at Bagicha police station, leading to the registration of a case against unknown accused persons. During the investigation, the accused, Touhid Khan, was arrested, and his memorandum statement revealed that he, along with co-accused Tanveer Ansari and Jilani Ansari, had brought a crane from Ambikapur, loaded the roller onto a truck, transported it to Jharkhand, and sold it at a junk shop. They received Rs. 9,000/- from the sale, of which Touhid spent Rs. 8,500 on food and drinks and kept Rs. 500/-, which was later seized from him. Based on his statement, co-accused Jilani Ansari and Tanveer Ansari were also charged under Sections 379 and 34 of the IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case. He submits that the allegation against the applicant not based on true facts, and events and he has been falsely implicated for the alleged commission of offence. He further submits that the applicant is sole bread winner of the family due to 3 his detention his family is facing financial hardship and mental agony and his marriage also get postponed which was earlier fixed for 12.11.2024. He also submits that the applicant has 06 criminal antecedents under the IPC of the years 2014, 2019 and 2024. In which, he has been acquitted in 03 cases. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 05.11.2024, conclusion of the fiat may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the present applicant, along with co-accused Tanveer Ansari and Jilani Ansari, had brought a crane from Ambikapur, loaded the roller onto a truck, transported it to Jharkhand, and sold it at a junk shop. They received Rs. 9,000/- from the sale, of which Touhid spent Rs. 8,500 on food and drinks and kept Rs. 500/-, which was later seized from him. He further submits that the present applicant has 06 criminal antecedents under the IPC, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that though the present applicant, along with co- accused Tanveer Ansari and Jilani Ansari, had brought a crane from Ambikapur, loaded the roller onto a truck, transported it to Jharkhand, and sold it at a junk shop and they received Rs. 9,000/- 4 from the sale, of which Touhid spent Rs. 8,500 on food and drinks and kept Rs. 500/-, which was later seized from him, further the present applicant has 06 criminal antecedents under the IPC of the years 2014, 2019 and 2024, but he has been acquitted in 03 cases and rest of the cases are old and stale, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case, and the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.11.2024, and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Let the Applicant- Tohid Khan, involved in Crime No. 67/2024 registered at Police Station Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two 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. 5 (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 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. 10. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice