Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15674 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2609 of 2025 Praveen S/o Chandra Bhan Lohar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Karoutha, Distt - Rohtak, Hariyana versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Gandhi Nagar Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate appears through video conferencing and Ms. Aakancha Vishwakarma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/04/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 12/2025, registered at Police Station – Gandhi Nagar Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 308(5), 61(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, and under Section 25 and 26 of Arms Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on an unspecified 2 date in 2025, the complainant, Shekar Agarwal, lodged a report at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, against three unknown persons. He alleged that on 02-01-2025 at around 11:00 AM, three unidentified persons visited his shop, Ravi Marbles and Tiles, and committed extortion by putting him in fear of death. They forcibly took Rs.25,000/- from him and committed the alleged offence. Based on the complaint lodged by Shekar Agarwal, the police arrested the accused Ajay, Manish, Manu, and Narendra. Subsequently, based on the memorandum of a co- accused, the police implicated the present applicant in the case and arrested him. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet before the competent court. 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 on the basis of the memorandum, the applicant has been implicated in the case, no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicant. He also submits that the other co-accused persons, namely, Sahil Goyal and Aryan Mukharjee have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 06.03.2025 and 21.03.2025 in MCRC Nos. 1805/2025 and 2287/2025 respectively, and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co- accused, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent, the applicant is in jail since 04.01.2025, charge-sheet has been filed 3 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. 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 persons were visited complainant’s shop, Ravi Marbles and Tiles, and committed extortion by putting him in fear of death. They forcibly took Rs.25,000/- from him, 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 04.01.2025, the fact that though the present applicant along with co-accused persons were visited complainant’s shop, Ravi Marbles and Tiles, and committed extortion by putting him in fear of death and they forcibly took Rs.25,000/- from him, but other co- accused persons, namely, Sahil Goyal and Aryan Mukharjee have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 06.03.2025 and 21.03.2025 in MCRC Nos. 1805/2025 and 2287/2025 respectively, and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused, so far as the criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, he has no criminal antecedent and charge- sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view 4 that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Applicant- Praveen, involved in Crime No. 12/2025, registered at Police Station – Gandhi Nagar Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 308(5), 61(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, and under Section 25 and 26 of 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 5 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. 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 Rahul Dewangan