Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4633 of 2025 Roshan Starly S/o. C.S. Starly Aged About 26 Years R/o. Kripal Nagar, Kohka, Ward No. 14, Street No. 03, Smriti Nagar Chowki, P.S. Supela, District - Durg (C.G.), versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO, Police Station, Koni, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate and Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.11 17:13:00 +0530 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.08.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.192/2024, registered at Police Station – Koni, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 2 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant – Lavkesh Rao Bhosle, alias Lavi, operates a Dhaba called Golory Pariwar Dhaba in village Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.). It is alleged that on 30.05.2024 at about 11:30 PM an unknown person entered the Dhaba, ordered Biryani and 10 chapatis, and then assaulted the complainant on the right side of his fact, causing a severe injury that resulted in her tear from his forehead to his jaw. The accused allegedly used a sharp-edged weapon to inflict a fatal injury on the complainant. Furthermore, it is alleged that the accused committed this offence after conspiring and planning with his friends. Based on the complainant’s report, the police registered an offence under Crime No.192/2024, punishable under Section 307, 120B and 34 of the IPC against the applicant. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant, along with two co-accused persons, is alleged to be involved in the said crime. However, at the time of the incident, the applicant was merely sitting in a car outside the Dhaba, while the co-accused entered the Dhaba and committed the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submitted that although the first bail application of co-accused Aayush Kale @ Sibu was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2024 passed in MCRC No. 5105/2024, and his second bail application was also dismissed subsequently, and the 3 anticipatory bail application of another co-accused, Ankit Chouhan, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2024 in MCRCA No. 743/2024, the present applicant stands on a different footing. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 24.07.2024. Out of the prosecution witnesses, only four formal witnesses have been examined so far. The complainant/injured have not appeared before the trial Court despite eight opportunities being given to record their evidence, with the first date fixed for appearance being 12.12.2024. It is also submitted that although the applicant has ten previous criminal antecedents, he has been acquitted in eight of them. Further, the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submitted that the bail application of co-accused Aayush Kale @ Sibu was earlier rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5105/2024, vide order dated 16.08.2024. Thereafter, he filed a second bail application, which was also dismissed by this Court. As regards the other co-accused, Ankit Chouhan, his anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 743/2024, vide order dated 08.07.2024. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, 4 nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant, along with two co-accused persons, is alleged to be involved in the said crime, however, at the time of the incident, the applicant was merely sitting in a car outside the Dhaba, while the co-accused entered the Dhaba and committed the alleged offence, further, the fact that though the first bail application of co-accused Aayush Kale @ Sibu was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2024 passed in MCRC No. 5105/2024, and his second bail application was also dismissed subsequently, and the anticipatory bail application of another co-accused, Ankit Chouhan, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2024 in MCRCA No. 743/2024, the present applicant stands on a different footing, considering the fact that the applicant has been in custody since 24.07.2024 and only four formal witnesses have been examined so far, the complainant/injured has not appeared before the trial Court despite eight opportunities being given to record their evidence, with the first date fixed for appearance being 12.12.2024, further the applicant has ten previous criminal antecedents, he has been acquitted in eight of them, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant – Roshan Starly, involved in Crime No.192/2024, registered at Police Station – Koni, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence 5 punishable under Sections 307, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’), 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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 6 such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against his, 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 his 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. Chief Justice Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Preeti