Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Magarload, District D
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4919 of 2025 Abhishek Pandey S/o Balkrishna Pandey Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bodra, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Magarload, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.11 18:26:54 +0530 10.07.2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 34/2025, registered at Police Station Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(2), 109, 140(3), 190, 191(2), 193(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident occurred on 05.03.2025. The F.I.R. was lodged by Doman Dhruv against 3–4 2 unknown persons. The F.I.R. was registered, inter alia, on the allegations that on 05.03.2025, the complainant, Doman Dhruv, along with his friend, Bhim Singh Dhruv, was diverting Hywa vehicles towards the river. It has been alleged that at about 01:00 a.m., Ved Prakash Sahu and Yash Sahu reached the spot near Kusumpul, Main Road, Kulhadikot, and assaulted the complainant while using abusive language. It is further alleged that the complainant sustained injuries on his right and left hands, back, and other parts of the body, and after the assault, the accused persons fled from the spot. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant has not committed any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The police have recorded the memorandum statements of Charan Das Baghel, Virendra Sahu, Krishna Kumar Sahu, Rahul Bandhekar, Neeraj Swami, Tajendra Bharti, and Yogesh Yadav. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and has been dragged into the instant case solely due to village politics. The statements of Doman Dhruv and Bhim Singh Dhruv were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and they have not named the applicant. He submits that the main allegation is against the co-accused persons, namely Yogesh Yadav, Virendra Sahu, and Tajendra Bharti, who assaulted the injured with a knife, due to which he received grievous injuries, so far as the present applicant is concerned, the allegation against him 3 is that he assaulted the injured with hands and fists. He also submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 01.06.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He further submits that the present applicant along with other co-accused have assaulted the injured by knife and hand and fists due to which he received grievous injuries, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the case's facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the offense, and further the fact that the main allegation is against the co-accused persons, namely Yogesh Yadav, Virendra Sahu, and Tajendra Bharti, who assaulted the injured with a knife, due to which he received grievous injuries, so far as the present applicant is concerned, the allegation against him is that he assaulted the injured with hands and fists, the case of the present applicant is distinguished form the said co-accused persons, moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, the applicant is in jail since 01.06.2025, conclusion of the trial is likely to take sometime, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this 4 case. 7. Let the applicant – Abhishek Pandey, involved in Crime No. 34/2025, registered at Police Station Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(2), 109, 140(3), 190, 191(2), 193(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 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 sufÏcient 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 such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against his, in 5 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. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice