Market Pan Bazaar, Mana Camp Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mana Camp, District
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:18848 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3182 of 2025 Amal Sarkar S/o Narayan Sarkar Aged About 34 Years R/o New Market Pan Bazaar, Mana Camp Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/04/2025 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. 404/2024 registered at Police Station Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, who claims 2 to be the applicant's wife for the last 12 years, alleged that the applicant habitually subjected her and their 10-year-old child to physical abuse while intoxicated. He frequently accused her of infidelity. The complainant left the matrimonial home due to the said cruelty and started living with her mother. On September 13, 2024, at around 9:30 P.M., the applicant allegedly trespassed into the complainant's matrimonial home while intoxicated. When questioned, he allegedly abused the complainant, physically assaulted her, and attacked her with a vegetable-cutting knife, causing multiple injuries. Based on the complainant's written report, the applicant was arrested in connection with the offense. 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 the entire prosecution case is premised solely on the uncorroborated version of the complainant, and there exists no independent or ocular witness to substantiate the allegations, the alleged incident is said to have occurred within a private residence, and no eye witness are present to support the complainant’s version regarding the prosecution's story. He also submits that the recovery of weapon of assault has been made from the applicant, which was planted, so far as injuries sustained by the injured is concerned, complainant sustained simple injuries. The applicant is in jail since 19.10.2024, the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2024 under the BNS, which pending against him, further charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take 3 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. He further submits that the applicant habitually subjected the complainant and their 10-year-old child to physical abuse while intoxicated, he allegedly trespassed into the complainant's matrimonial home while intoxicated and physically assaulted her, and attacked her with a vegetable-cutting knife, causing multiple injuries to her, further he has one criminal antecedent pending against him, which is of the year 2024 under the BNS, therefore, he 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 19.10.2024, the fact that though the applicant habitually subjected the complainant and their 10-year-old child to physical abuse while intoxicated, he allegedly trespassed into the complainant's matrimonial home while intoxicated and physically assaulted her, and attacked her with a vegetable-cutting knife, causing multiple injuries to her, but the injuries sustained by the complainant are found to be simple in nature, which has also been opined by the doctor, so far as criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, applicant has only one criminal antecedent, which is of the year 2024 under the BNS, further charge-sheet has been filed 4 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-Amal Sarkar, involved in Crime No. 404/2024 registered at Police Station Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 118(1) 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 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 5 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 Kunal