1 - Dhanesh Dhimar S/o Dharam Singh Dhimar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village v. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police of Police Station Arjuni, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3541 of 2025 1 - Dhanesh Dhimar S/o Dharam Singh Dhimar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Telinsatti, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Surendra Kumar Dhruv S/o Late Maniram Dhruv Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Telinsatti, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police of Police Station Arjuni, District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant For Non-applicant/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.05.09 17:06:30 +0530 07.05.2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 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. 22/2025, registered at Police Station – Arjuni, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 118(2), 117(2), 296, 115(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the FIR was lodged by Bhawani 2 Sinha naming the applicants and one Sanjay Dhruv and as per the averment of the FIR, on 11.02.2025, he was sited nearby the Sati Temple and his brother Hemant Sinha was talking to someone else through mobile, at that time, applicant No.2 Surendra Dhruv came there and due to old rivalry abused Hemant Sinha and slapped him, the matter was intervened by the complainant i.e. Bhawani Sinha, thereafter, the friend of Surendra Dhruv i.e. Dhanesh Dhimar and Sanjay Dhruve came there and used filthy languages and Dhanesh Dimar assaulted him with hand and fist and Sanjay Dhruv assaulted him with the sharp edged weapon in the left eye of the complainant, subsequently, the matter being investigated by the Police and the applicant and other co-accused persons have been arrested for the commission of alleged offence. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and the charge- sheet has been filed in this case. It is submitted that the applicants along with the co-accused namely, Sanjay Dhruv are said to have involved in the present case and it is stated that the injured had lodged the FIR against the applicants along with the co-accused, but in the FIR it has been alleged that it was the co-accused, namely, Sanjay Dhruv who has assaulted the injured with sharp edged weapon which hit him on his temporal region of his head, and though the injured has lodged the of the incident but he has said nothing about the applicant’s role as the applicant No.1 has assaulted the injured with hands and fist and applicant No. 2 has slapped the brother of the injured. The applicant is in jail since 13.03.2025 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 3 5. 6. application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that as per the statement of the injured, it is stated that the applicants have got hold the injured, but admittedly from the prosecution evidence is stated evident that the injured was assaulted by the co-accused, namely, Sanjay Dhruv with a sharp edged weapon. 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 fact that charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, further the applicants along with the co-accused namely, Sanjay Dhruv are said to have involved in the present case and it is stated that the injured had lodged the FIR against the applicants along with the co-accused, but in the FIR it has been alleged that it was the co-accused, namely, Sanjay Dhruv who has assaulted the injured with sharp edged weapon which hit him on his temporal region of his head, and though the injured has lodged the of the incident but he has said nothing about the applicant’s role as the applicant No.1 has assaulted the injured with hands and fist and applicant No. 2 has slapped the brother of the injured, the applicant is in jail since 13.03.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicants, Dhanesh Dhimar and Surendra Kumar Dhruv, involved in Crime No. 22/2025, registered at Police Station – Arjuni, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 118(2), 117(2), 296, 115(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 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. 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 Preeti