Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2886 of 2025 1 - Baleshwar Yadav S/o Late Haricharan Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Songara, P.S.- Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Kanhaiya Lal S/o Haricharan Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Songara, P.S.- Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G.) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 3 - Rajesh Yadav S/o Ramlochan Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Koldhiha, Police Station- Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) versus ... Applicant(s) The State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O, Police Station Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the 2 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 144/2024 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Sitaram Yadav, had a father with two wives. Sitaram was born to one wife, while the accused, Baleshwar and Kanhaiyalal, were born to the other. Another accused, Rajesh, is their grandson. The ancestral land, located on the main road in Sonagra, was recorded under the name of Baleshwar after their father's death, with all three brothers having a share in it. Sitaram was allocated a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and was excavating the foundation for his house construction on November 2, 2024. At around 12:30 pm, the accused arrived and started abusing Sitaram with foul language, threatening to kill him, and started assaulting him. Kanhaiyalal hit Sitaram on the head and right shoulder with a spade, while Baleshwar hit Sitaram's son, Noharlal Yadav, on the head with an axe. Rajesh Yadav beat Sitaram's other son, Noharlal Yadav, on the back, waist, legs, and other body parts with a bamboo stick. The assault caused Noharlal Yadav to bleed from a head injury and faint at the scene. Laborers present at the site, including Rajkumar Yadav, Shipraasad Agaria, and Akash Agaria, intervened to stop the fight. Thereafter, aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicants and subsequently, they were 3 arrested. Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that there are counter versions of the incident and both the sides have received injuries including applicant No.1, further the FIR which was lodged from the side of the applicants as the complainant / injured, offence has been registered under Section 323 of the IPC alongwith other offences, which were bailable ones, whereas against the applicants offence has been registered under Section 307 of the IPC and the injured has received injuries on his head i.e. depressed fracture of right parietal bone. The applicants are in jail since 28.02.2025, the applicant No.1 and 2 have no criminal antecedent, so far as applicant No.3 is concerned, applicant No.3 has one criminal antecedent under Section 147, 148 and 506-B of the IPC, which is pending, 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 applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicants are alleged to have assaulted the injured on his head and other persons with spade and axe, due to which, injured sustained depressed fracture on right parietal bone, further applicant No.3 has one criminal antecedent under the IPC, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants since 28.02.2025, the fact that there are counter versions of the incident and both the sides have received injuries, the FIR lodged by the side of applicants as complainant / injured against present complainant is for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC alongwith other bailable offences, whereas against present applicants, the offence has been registered under Section 307 of the IPC, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, applicants No.1 and 2 have no criminal antecedent and applicant No.3 has only one criminal antecedent under the IPC, further charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicants-Baleshwar Yadav, Kanhaiya Lal and Rajesh Yadav, involved in Crime No. 144/2024 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 3(5) of BNS, 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 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 5 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 their absence, without sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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. 9. 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