Bhupat Hatile S/o Netram Hatile Aged About 34 Years R/o Parras P.S. AKHILESH KUMAR v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer P.S. Balod District Balod
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31727 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5285 of 2025 Bhupat Hatile S/o Netram Hatile Aged About 34 Years R/o Parras P.S. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Tehsil And District Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer P.S. Balod District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/07/2025 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. 141/2025 registered at Police Station Balod District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 296, 351(2), 115(2), 119(1), 119(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.03. 2025, around 5:00 2 P.M., the victim was sitting near the Kharakhra canal bridge. At that time, the accused, Bhupat, and co-accused, Neetam, arrived on a motorcycle and took the victim with them, claiming they had work. On the way, both accused demanded money from the victim to buy liquor. When the victim said he didn't have money, the accused abused him with filthy language. When the victim objected to the abuse, the accused threatened to kill him. Neetam hit the victim with a stick, while Bhupat assaulted him with his fists, causing him injuries. Upon receiving information about the incident, a case was registered at Balod Police Station, and during the investigation, the accused were arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. She further submits that no injury has been caused to the injured by the applicant, the injuries sustained by the injured were caused by the co-accused, who assaulted the injured with a stick, resulting in a fracture to index finger of the injured. The applicant is in jail since 23.03.2025, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has two criminal antecedents, out of which, one is of the year 2021 under the IPC, in which applicant has already been acquitted and another is of the year 2022 under the Excise Act, which is pending, further charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the 3 applicant has two criminal antecedents and charge-sheet has been filed in this case. She further submits that applicant alongwith another co-accused abused the complainant with filthy language and physically assaulted him on his refusal of money to buy liquor, resulting which, injured sustained injuries i.e. fracture on his index finger and as per Medical OfÏcer’s report the injuries are grievous in nature, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case also considering the fact that though prima facie it appears that the applicant/accused, along with the co-accused, abused the complainant with filthy language and physically assaulted him, resulting which, injured sustained injuries i.e. fracture on his index finger and as per Medical OfÏcer’s report the injuries are found to be grievous in nature, but the said act of causing injury has been attributed to the co-accused, Neetam, who hit the injured with a stick, whereas present applicant allegedly assaulted the injured with his fists, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has two criminal antecedents, out of which, one is of the year 2021 under the IPC, in which applicant has already been acquitted and another is of the year 2022 under the Excise Act, which is pending, applicant has only one criminal antecedent pending against him, charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and he is in jail since 23.03.2025, as such, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in 4 this case, accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant-Bhupat Hatile, involved in Crime No. 141/2025 registered at Police Station Balod District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 296, 351(2), 115(2), 119(1), 119(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 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. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, 5 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 copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil