Raigarh (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3676 of 2025 1-Aman Sarthi S/o Panchram Sarthi Aged About 18 Years R/o Saraipali, District- Raigarh (C.G.) VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.06.30 12:43:52 +0530 2-Yadram Sarthi S/o Maganlal Sarthi Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Saraibhaddar District- Raigarh (C.G.) . ..Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Pusore, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 82/2025 registered at Police Station Pusora, District Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4),319(2),61(2) read 2 with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per prosecution story on 01/04/2025 examination of open schooling for science subject only which was conducted for Class 10th, for year 2021-22 the complainant namely Prahlad Nande who was the examiner at the examination center at village Pusore during checking before the exam, perused the roll number 11702220065 which belonged to the Applicant No. 2/Yadram Sarthi and when the complainant matched the admit card with the Applicant no. 1 /Aman Sarthi he found that the admit card belonged to the Applicant No. 2 therefore the aforesaid offences have been registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits the actuality of the situation is that the Applicant No. 1 who is the brother-in-law of the Applicant No. 2 and he went to the examination center to request the exam controller that the Applicant No. 2 will be late for the examination but the Applicant No. 1 was surprised to see the conduct of the complainant as the complainant started leveling allegation regarding the present offences and hat the applicant no. 1 is a teenager and a student who is pursuing his education for the subject of commerce of Class 12th in the 2024-25 he cannot sit and write examination of science subject therefore the applicants cannot be held liable under the said offences. Copy of marksheet is annexed as ANNEXURE A-2. That there is vast age difference between the Applicant No. 1 and the Applicant No. 2 the prosecution agency has seized the admit card of the Applicant No. 2 3 from the Applicant No. 1 whereas the Applicant No. 1 took the admit card of his relative just to show the exam controller that the Applicant No. 2 will be late for his examination but the whole story has been made up out of grudge of the complainant just to implicate the applicants in the present case. That there is no signature, anything which shows that the applicant actually sits in the examination of class 10th in place of Applicant No. 2. That the Applicant No. 2 is government servant and is posted as Peon posted at Dharamjaigarh. The wife of the Applicant no. 2 is pregnant and is about to deliver a child and there is no one to look after her. Copy of medical report is annexed as ANNEXURE A-3. That the present applicant has not obtained any amount and he never been serve with neither any notice nor any questioning by any authorities about the alleged embezzlement of the amount. That, the offence is trial by Magistrate and the Applicant No. 1 is in jail since 01/04/2025 and the Applicant no. 2 is in jail since 02/04/2025 ,the Applicants are permanent resident of above mentioned address as such there is no chance of their absconding thereafter the complainant has lodged false first information report against the applicants. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the 4. 5. 6. 4 applicants have no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the charge - sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and appellant No.1 has been arrested on 01.04.2025 and appellant No2. has been arrested on 02.04.2025 and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Aman Sarth & Yadram Sarthi involved in Crime No. 82/2025 registered at Police Station Pusora, District Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4),319(2),61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 sufficient 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, 5 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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - vaibhav Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice