Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21661 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3121 of 2025 Shubham Verma S/o Krishna Verma Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Bhatapara (Saja), Police Station Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) versus --- Applicant State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) --- Non-applicant For Applicant For Non-applicant/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Varunendra Mishra, Advocate. Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Along with MCRC No. 3094 of 2025 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI Omprakash @ Monu Sahu S/o Ramprasad Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Ward No. 3, Bharatpur, Saja, Police Station And Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Applicant The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Saja, District – Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant For Non-applicant/State : : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate. Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09.05.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 2 316/2024, registered at Police Station – Saja, District – Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant made complaint before the Police Station concerned that on 02.11.2024, Pankaj Sahu, Sumit Yadav, Gonda Yadav, Rakesh Sahu, and Pintu Sahu were standing near the Gupta Kirana Store, at that time, Shubham Verma, Yogesh Sahu, Monu Sahu and Sangam Sahu came there and abuses filthy languages to the complainant and also assaulted the complaint, further allegation is that the co-accused namely Yogesh Sahu that he assaulted one Arun Yadav from the Knife and ran away form the spot. 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 further the applicants are said to have assaulted the injured with hands and fists, whereas it is the co-accused Yogesh Sahu, who is said to have assaulted the injured with knife, due to which the injured has received some injuries. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and there is no any criminal antecedents of the applicant, naemly, Shubham Verma, and there are 6 criminal antecedents of the applicant, namely, Om Prakash @ Monu Sahu, out of which 3 cases
Decision
have been disposed of. The applicants are in jail since 03.02.2025 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 are 6 criminal antecedents of the applicant, namely, Omprakash @ Monu Sahu, and the charge-sheet has 5. 6. 3 been filed in this case. It is further submitted that the complainant made complaint before the Police Station concerned that on 02.11.2024, Pankaj Sahu, Sumit Yadav, Gonda Yadav, Rakesh Sahu, and Pintu Sahu were standing near the Gupta Kirana Store, at that time, Shubham Verma, Yogesh Sahu, Monu Sahu and Sangam Sahu came there and abuses filthy languages to the complainant and also assaulted the complaint, further allegation is that the co-accused namely Yogesh Sahu that he assaulted one Arun Yadav from the Knife and ran away form the spot, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 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 applicants are said to have assaulted the injured with hands and fists, whereas it is the co-accused Yogesh Sahu, who is said to have assaulted the injured with knife, due to which the injured has received some injuries, further there is no any criminal antecedents of the applicant, naemly, Shubham Verma, and there are 6 criminal antecedents of the applicant, namely, Omprakash @ Monu Sahu, out of which 3 cases have been disposed of, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicants are in jail since 03.02.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicants, Shubham Verma and Omprakash @ Monu Sahu, involved in Crime No. 316/2024, registered at Police Station – Saja, District – Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5) and 109 of the BNS, be released on bail on his 4 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 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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 5 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar