Devendra Singh S/o Mohan Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Saran, P.O. And P.S v. State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Ganj, District – Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:12320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1212 of 2025 Devendra Singh S/o Mohan Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Saran, P.O. And P.S. Silyari, District Pali, Rajasthan. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Ganj, District – Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant For Non-applicant/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.03.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 223/2024, registered at Police Station – Ganj, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 399, 402 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that on the basis of the computerized written report of Deepak Paswan, who happens to be Inspector of Ganj P.S. alleging therein that he happens to be the OfÏcer-in-charge of Ganj P.S, on 25.05.2024, received confidential information through spy that 2 one unknown person was moving near the Railway Station Chowk Raipur Gate No.2 along with fire arm and he along with other accused persons were planning to commit dacoity. The informant along with other police personnel proceeded towards the place of occurrence as disclosed by the spy. One person was seen trying to flee away who was apprehended by the Police and on search one mobile and a pistol loaded with magazine was reconceived. He disclosed his name as Rohit Swankar, when query was made and document with regard/license with regards to the recovery pistol was asked nothing was produced. The loaded pistol, magazine, mobile phone was seized and memorandum was prepared. The apprehended accused disclosed that Pappu Singh through whatsapp planned for firing upon the premises of Barbarik Project Limited and the deal was fixed at Rs.6 Lakh out of which Rs.25,000/- was spent in purchasing the pistol from Sendhwa Madhya Pradesh. He also disclosed that the applicant along with other was present near Bhatagaon Chowk. The Police party on the discloser of Rohit Swarnkar reached Bharagaon Chowk two persons were apprehended, one person disclosed his name as Mukesh Kumar and the other was the applicant. They disclosed that Pappu Singh has sent one motorcycle and a person to ride motorcycle which was to be accompanied by the shooter. He has sent the number of the motorcycle by mobile. Mukesh Singh said that he brought the applicant with him. He was to get Rs.4,50,000/- for the work. They were to make firing upon the person sitting in vehicle having registration No. CG-04-NZ-8875 which was parked in the ofÏce Barbarik Pvt. Ltd. and they were to commit dacoity and also extort money in future by threatening them. On the instruction of Mayank Singh all the three assembled there. The motorcycle and the cartridges were provided by Pappu and Mayank they 3 all were in contact through mobile phone, from the possession of Mukesh Singh two mobile phones were recovered and from the possession of the applicant's one Oppo Mobile Phone with SIM was recovered the same were seized and FIR was lodged. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is only one criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant of the year 2019 from the State of Rajasthan, which has been old and stale, further the fact that a total of 6 accused persons are involved in the present case out of which 5 have already been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 25.05.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is one criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant of the year 2019 from the State of Rajasthan, and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that out of the two bikers who were given the responsibility of shooting at the driver of Barbaric Project's vehicle number CG-04-NZ- 8875, apart from co-accused Mukesh, accused Devendra is also there, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that 4 there is only one criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant of the year 2019 from the State of Rajasthan, which has been old and stale, further the fact that a total of 6 accused persons are involved in the present case out of which 5 have already been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 25.05.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicant, Devendra Singh, involved in Crime No. 223/2024, registered at Police Station – Ganj, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 399, 402 and 386 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rajshekhar Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice