Budhwari Bazar, Birgaon, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station D.D. Nagar, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:19085 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3217 of 2025 1 - Soniya Yadav W/o Goverdhan Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Danganiya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Goverdhan Yadav S/o Late Samaru Ram Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Danganiya, Raipur, District AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Tarun Kumar @ Rahul Yadav S/o Chintaram Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Budhwari Bazar, Birgaon, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Kamlesh Yadav S/o Rama Yadav Aged About 31 Years Near Budhwari Bazar, Birgaon, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28/04/2025 1. 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. 52/2025 registered at Police Station D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections296, 115(2), 351(3), 74, 3(5) and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim made a written complaint at Police Station D.D. Nagar, District – Raipur (C.G.) alleging therein that, victim had previously filed a complaint on 12.01.2025, at around 10:30 A.M. against Sonia Yadav, Govardhan Yadav, Esha Yadav, Aryan Yadav, Kamlega Prasad, Rahul Yadav, and others for serious offenses, including criminal intimidation, assault, and defamation. The complainant alleged that the accused persons had threatened to kill her and her family members with swords and knives, forcing her to withdraw the complaint. However, after returning home, the accused persons continued to threaten her and her family, brandishing knives and swords, and uttering threats. The accused allegedly made obscene and indecent remarks, touched her hair and body, attempted to violate her modesty, and forcibly touched her private parts. When her sisters intervened, the accused threatened to kill them. The accused also allegedly called her a "Tonhi" (witch) and threatened to kill her, accusing her of practicing witchcraft. Based on the complainant's written report aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicants and subsequently, they were 3 arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the applicants belong to same family, applicant No.1 is sister of applicant No.4, applicant No.2 is brother-in-law of applicant No.4 and applicant No.3 is nephew of applicant No.4, the marriage of applicant No. 4 is scheduled to take place on 30.04.2025, and the ceremony has already started on 28.04.2025, copies of original marriage invitation card is annexed collectively as Annexure A/2. He also submits that on 10.01.2025, the victim parked her vegetable cart in front of applicant No. 1's Fancy Article Shop at Danganiya, obstructing the passage and preventing customers from entering the shop. When applicant No. 1 requested the victim to remove the cart, the victim allegedly used filthy language and called her sisters, who then assaulted applicant No. 1. The applicants sustained grievous injuries on her hand and head. The victim assaulted applicant No. 1 with a stick. They also allege that due to the victim's profession as an advocate, no one is willing to testify against her. He lastly submits that the complainant of the case is an Advocate, though compromise has taken place between the parties, but after two days of the same, present FIR has been lodged. The applicants are in jail since 09.04.2025, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has not been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail 4 application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. She further submits that though the applicants have no criminal antecedents, but the applicants are alleged to have threatened the victim and her family, brandishing knives and swords, and uttering threats, they made obscene and indecent remarks, touched her hair and body, attempted to violate her modesty, and forcibly touched her private parts, they also called her a "Tonhi" (witch) accusing her of practicing witchcraft, therefore, they are 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 applicants since 09.04.2025, the fact that though the applicants are alleged to have threatened the victim and her family, brandishing knives and swords, and uttering threats and also tried to outrage her modesty, but considering the fact that the marriage of applicant No. 4 is scheduled to take place on 30.04.2025 and applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are relatives of applicant No.4, copies of original marriage invitation card is annexed collectively as Annexure A/2, also considering the statement of victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS and charge-sheet has not 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. 7. Let the Applicants-Soniya Yadav, Goverdhan Yadav, Tarun 5 Kumar @ Rahul Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav, involved in Crime No. 52/2025 registered at Police Station D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 74, 3(5) and 333 of the BNS, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each 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 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 his 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 6 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. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. 9. Certified copy today. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil