Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA 2025:CGHC:32044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4439 of 2025 • Pappu Singh @ Papsa S/o. Mohan Singh, R/o. Saran, P.O. And P.S. Silyari, District - Pali, Rajasthan. versus ... Applicant • State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Ganj, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case information System) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/07/2025 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. 223/2024 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) under Section 120-B, 399, 402, 386 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act. 2. the case of prosecution, is that on the basis of the computerized written report of Deepak Paswan, who happens to be inspector of Ganj P.S. alleging therein that he happens to be the Officer-in-charge of Ganj P.S, on 25.05.2024 he received confidential information through spy that one unknown person was moving near the railway 2 station chowk Raipur Gate No.2 along with fire arm and he along with other accused persons where planning to committee dacoity. The informant along with other police personnel proceeded towards the place of occurrence as disclosed by the spy. One person was seen trying to flee away who was apprehended by the police and on search one mobile and a pistol loaded with magazine was reconceived. He disclosed his name as Rohit Swankar, when query was made and document with regard/license with regards to the recovery pistol was asked nothing was produced. The loaded pistol, magazine, mobile phone was seized and memorandum was prepared. The apprehended accused disclosed that Mayank Singh and Pappu Singh through whatsapp planned for firing upon the premises of Barbarik Project Limited and the deal was fixed at Rs.6 Lakh out of which Rs.25,000/- was spent in purchasing the pistol from Sendhwa Madhya Pradesh. He also disclosed that the co-accused Mukesh and Devendra were present near Bhatagaon Chowk. The police party on the discloser of Rohit Swarnkar reached Bhatagaon Chowk two persons were apprehended, one person disclosed his name as Mukesh Kumar and the other was the Devendra. They disclosed that Pappu Singh has sent one motorcycle and a person to ride motorcycle which was to be accompanied by the shooter. He has sent the number of the motorcycle by mobile. Mukesh Singh said that he brought the Co- accused Devendra with him. He was to get Rs. 4,50,000/- for the work. They were to make firing upon the person sitting in vehicle having registration no CG04NZ 8875 which was parked in the office Barbarik Pvt. Ltd. and they were to commit dacoity and also extort money in future by threatening them. On the instruction of Mayank Singh all the three assembled there. The motorcycle and the cartridges were provided by Mayank and Pappu they all were in 3 contact through mobile phone, from the possession of Mukesh Singh two mobile phones were recovered and from the possession of Davendra one Mobile Phone with SIM was recovered and the same were seized and FIR was lodged. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and applicant is a resident of the State of Rajasthan and there were five accused persons involved in crime in question, out of which three accused persons have already been granted bail, so far as applicant is concern the case is identical of the case of other co-accused, who has been granted bail. He further submits that the applicant is having four criminal antecedents, in which he has already on bail, further he is in jail since 25.05.2024 and statement of only one witness has been recorded till date, copy of the order-sheets as well as the statement of the witness has been annexed at page No.86 the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and also endorse the said submission that the applicant has four criminal antecedents. He further submits that applicant is a resident of the State of Rajasthan and looking to the conduct of the applicant, the present applicant 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 that the applicant is a resident of the State of Rajasthan and there 4 were other accused persons also involved in crime in question, out of which three accused persons have already been granted bail, so far as applicant is concern the case is identical of the case of other co- accused, who has been granted bail. He further submits that the applicant is having four criminal antecedents, in which he has already on bail, further he is in jail since 25.05.2024 and statement of only one witness has been recorded till date and charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, looking to the detention period of the present applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case 7. Let the Applicant – Pappu Singh @ PAPSA, involved in Crime No. 223/2024 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) under Section 120-B, 399, 402, 386 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond with two local 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 sufficient 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 5 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 sufficient 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 an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - vaishali Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice