Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2574 of 2025 Tarkeshwar Singh S/o Ramesh Kumar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Tilai O.P. Chikhali P.S. City Kotwali Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) versus ... Applicant(s) State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Somni District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/04/2025 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. 223/2024 registered at Police Station Somni District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 309(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on September 15, 2024, 2 Moradhvaj Sahu was on his way to pick up his wife, Kesari Sahu, from Tedesara after completing his duty at Sita Refinery. However, he was intercepted by two individuals on a motorcycle near Anjora Bypass. They chased him, stopped him before reaching Tedesara village, and intimidated him, snatched his mobile phone. The accused then called an accomplice and took Moradhvaj to a deserted area near Tedesara Bhatti, where they physically assaulted him and threatened to kill him. The accused demanded Moradhvaj's mobile password, and when he hesitated, they beat him. After obtaining the password, they transferred Rs.1 lakh from his phone using PhonePe. The accused then removed the SIM card from Moradhvaj's phone and left him at the road, threatening to kill him if he reported the incident. Moradhvaj later met his wife at a hotel near Tedesara Chowk and informed her about the incident. Together, they filed a report at Somni Police Station and subsequently accused persons were arrested. Hence, the bail application. 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 as per FIR and other collected evidences by the prosecution, the said amount has been transferred from complainant’s mobile phone to various phone numbers, but none of the mobile numbers belongs to the present applicant nor is any seizure of mobile phone has been made from present applicant, further as per the allegation Rs.1,00,000/- had transferred from 3 complainant’s mobile phone, but only Rs.5,000/- has been seized from present applicant, which is very probable and the same cannot be linked with the commission of alleged offence. The applicant is in jail since 09.11.2024, the applicant has two criminal antecedents under the IPC, out of which, one is of the year 2018 and another is of the year 2022, 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. She further submits that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons had physically assaulted the complainant and threatened to kill him, they transferred Rs.1 lakh from complainant’s phone via PhonePe in different accounts, further in Test Identification Parade (TIP), the complainant has identified the applicant as one of the accused persons, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has two criminal antecedents of the year 2018 and 2022 under the IPC, therefore, 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 09.11.2024, the fact that though the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons are alleged to have physically assaulted the complainant and threatened to kill him, they transferred Rs.1 lakh 4 from complainant’s phone via PhonePe in different accounts, further in Test Identification Parade (TIP), the complainant has identified the applicant as one of the accused persons, but considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, as the applicant has two criminal antecedents of the years 2018 and 2022 under the IPC, out of which, case of 2018 is old and stale and besides this case, the applicant has only one case pending against him, further 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-Tarkeshwar Singh, involved in Crime No. 223/2024 registered at Police Station Somni District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 309(4), 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on his 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. (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 5 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 Akhil