1 - Atul Yadav S/o Ashok Kumar Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village v. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33498 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3704 of 2025 1 - Atul Yadav S/o Ashok Kumar Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Khamhariya, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Surendra Prajapati S/o Samaru Ram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Khamhariya, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Praveen Kenwat S/o Dujram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Khamhariya, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Applicants versus RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) MCRC No. 5103 of 2025 ---- Non-applicant Gangaram Kenwat S/o Nepal Singh Kenwat Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Khamariya Police Station Seepat District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus ---Applicant State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Seepat District - Bilaspur (C.G.) MCRC No. 3864 of 2025 ---- Non-applicant Rajendra Kenwat S/o Gya Prasad Aged About 33 Years R/o Dagniya, P.S. Sipat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus ---Applicant State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Seepat, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) For Applicant : ---- Non-applicant
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shubham Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate and Mr. Praveen Kumar Sharma Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon'ble Shri , Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha Order on Board 16.07.2025 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. 310/2023, registered at Police Station – Seepat, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 326, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant namely Manohar Kashyap made complaint on 04.05.2023 at Police Station Seepat stating that on 03.05.2025, his son namely Avinash Kashyap, Roshan Suryavanshi and other villagers were going Barat of Goukaran Yadav ain the pick-up and near the High School for breaking coconut, at the same time, one another Barat was also coming from opposite and due to the matter of way and parking of the vehicle, at that time some unknown persons abuses filthy languages to Avinash Kashyap, Roshan Suryavanshi and other villagers and also threatened to kill them and also assaulted them from sharp aged edged weapon. Therefore, the Police has registered the crime against the unknown persons and during the course of investigation the applicants and one minor accused was arrested. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicants along with the co-accused who was juvenile, were involved in the present case, and the applicant as well as the co-accused are assigned the role of assaulting two injured persons 3 out of which one injured has sustained simple injury and one has sustained some injuries on his non-vital part of the body, further the injured namely Roshan has received injury on his thigh but the author of the said injury is no known and the co-accused who was stated to be juvenile has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court concerned. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicants are in jail since 23.04.2024, 28.04.2025, and 31.05.2025 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 application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that the applicants along with the co-accused person who was stated to be juvenile are said to have assaulted two injured persons namely, Avinash Kashyap and Roshan Suryavanshi, due to which they have sustained injuries and Roshan Suryavanshi has sustained injuries on his thigh, and during the course of investigation the applicants and one minor accused was arrested, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. 6. 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 the applicants along with the co-accused who was juvenile, were involved in the present case, and the applicant as well as the co- accused are assigned the role of assaulting two injured persons out of which one injured has sustained simple injury and one has sustained some injuries on his non-vital part of the body, further the injured namely 4 Roshan has received injury on his thigh but the author of the said injury is no known and the co-accused who was stated to be juvenile has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court concerned, charge- sheet has been filed against the applicants, the applicants are in jail since 23.04.2024, 28.04.2025, and 31.05.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicants, Atul Yadav, Surendra Prajapati, Praveen Kenwat, Gangaram Kenwat and Rajendra Kenwat, involved in Crime No. 310/2023, registered at Police Station – Seepat, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 326, 147, 148 of 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 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. 5 (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. Rajshekhar Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice