Nafr High Court
Case Details
2025:CGHC:22197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2755 of 2025 Vasudev Sahu S/o Chitrasen Sahu, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 08, Bijapara Darra, Dhamtari, P.S. Birejhar, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant For Applicant For : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. Non-applicant/State MCRC No. 2805 of 2025 Shubham Dewangan S/o Dinesh Dewangan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Saragaon, Ward No. 2, P.S. Kharora, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Fingeshwar Distt.- Gariyabandh (Chhattisgarh) --- Non-applicant For Applicant For : : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. Non-applicant/State MCRC No. 2881 of 2025 Dhruv Kumar Nishad S/o Mansingh Nishad Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kundel, P.S. Magarload, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Fingeshwar, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant For Applicant For : : Mr. R.P. Tripathi, Advocate Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. Non-applicant/State MCRC No. 3150 of 2025 Maniram Miri S/o Shri Tahlu Satnami Aged About 53 Years R/o. Village- Bakli, P.S. - Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) --Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Fingeshwar (Wrongly Mention Rajim) District- Gariyaband (C.G.) --- Non-applicant For Applicant For : : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. Non-applicant/State Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/05/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 64/2025 registered at Police Station - Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 318, 319, 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. According to the prosecution’s story, the applicant Navendra Kumar Sinha filed a complaint application before the Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband and during the investigation, statements of the applicant and witnesses were recorded wherein it was revealed that the present applicants/accused persons took an advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant in lieu of selling the land bearing Khasra No. 2835, 2850, 50 admeasuring 0.27, 0.22 and 0.51 hectares respectively, originally registered in the name of one Shatrughan Lal Sahu and on 23/08/2024, they appeared at the registration office, Rajim and fraudulently got the said land registered in the name of the complainant after taking Rs. 25,87,000/- from him through cheque and Rs. 33,38,000/- as cash. On 05/01/2025, when the complainant inquired about the sale of the said land from Shatrughan Lal Sahu, he refused to have sold the said land to anyone and denied giving possession, pursuant to which FIR was lodged against the present applicants/accused persons and aforesaid offence was registered against them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the crime in question. They would further submit that applicant Vasudev Sahu’s father namely Chitrasen Sahu is suffering from cancer (Annexure A-2) and the applicants do not have any criminal antecedents and since they are in jail since 05/03/2025 and conclusion of trial may take some time, therefore, the applicants be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that charge-sheet has not been filed and looking to the offence committed by the applicants, the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence as well as the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, particularly considering that applicant Vasudev Sahu’s father is suffering from a serious disease like cancer and there are no criminal antecedents of the applicants and though the charge-sheet has not been filed but looking to the period of detention of the applicants i.e. 05/03/2025, conclusion of trial may take some more time, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicants, Vasudev Sahu, Shubham Dewangan, Dhruv Kumar Nishad and Maniram Miri, involved in Crime No. 64/2025 registered at Police Station : Fingeshwar, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318, 319, 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Harneet Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice