Sourav @ Gogo Yadav S/o Bhardwaj Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Near Doman v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station City Kotwali, District Durg, C.G
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31716 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5316 of 2025 Sourav @ Gogo Yadav S/o Bhardwaj Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Near Doman Grocery Shop, Ward No. 39, Near South Facing Hanuman Temple, Diparapaar, Durg, P.S. And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station City Kotwali, District Durg, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2025 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 658/2024 registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2)(3), 115(2), 109, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-B) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.10 10:34:49 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant made a complaint to the concerned police station alleging, inter alia, that on the date of the incident, i.e., 27.01.2024 at about 8:30 p.m., he received information that his brother was assaulted by the accused persons, who threatened to commit murder and used filthy language. As a result, the injured person sustained injuries on his body. Based upon the said complaint, the concerned police registered a case against the applicant for the offences under Sections 296, 351(2) (3), 115(2), 109, and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, and Sections 25(1-B) and 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that, at the time of the incident, a simple dispute arose between the parties due to previous enmity, and the injured person received simple injuries, not grievous in nature. However, the applicant neither assaulted the injured person nor committed any of the aforesaid offences alleged by the prosecution against him. He also submits that the police authorities did not conduct a proper investigation before registering the FIR against the present applicant and implicated him solely on the basis of mere suspicion, arresting him on false allegations. He also submits that the applicant present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 29.12.2024, 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 counsel State counsel opposes the bail 3 application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and also endorse the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that he has no criminal antecedents. He submits that the allegation against the applicant is that the co-accused, namely Kalesh @ Anna Patre, assaulted the injured with a knife, so far as the present applicant is concerned, he allegedly accompanied the co-accused, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and further the fact that the allegation against the applicant is that the co-accused, namely Kalesh @ Anna Patre, assaulted the injured with a knife, so far as the present applicant is concerned, he allegedly accompanied the co-accused, moreover, the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and the applicant has been in jail since 29.12.2024, the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Sourav @ Gogo Yadav, involved in Crime No. 658/2024 registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2)(3), 4 115(2), 109, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-B) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount 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. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening 5 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 forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek