Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5752 of 2025 Charandas S/o Karandas Baghel, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village - Mandraud, Police Station - Kurud, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant(s) State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Magarlod, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23/07/2025 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. 34/2025 registered at Police Station Magarlod, 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), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on March 5, 2025, the 2 complainant, Doman Dhruv, and his companions were working on a road construction project near Kusumpal. Co-accused individuals Yash and Ved Prakash allegedly asked the complainant to accompany them in a car. Subsequently, the applicant and other co-accused persons arrived at the scene, began abusing and assaulting the complainant, and allegedly took him and other injured persons away in their vehicle. The accused individuals purportedly had a vested interest in preventing the complainant's sand excavation business. The incident led to the registration of an FIR at Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, under various sections of the law, including sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(2), 109, 140(3), 190, 191(2), 193(3), and 3(5), as well as sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that one of the co-accused persons, namely, Deepak Kosre who assaulted the injured with hands and fists has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 in MCRC No.5180 of 2025. He also submits that the main allegations are against the accused, namely, Yogesh Yadav, Virendra Sahu and Tajendra Bharti, who assaulted the injured by knife, whereas present applicant has assaulted the injured with stick. The applicant is in jail since 09.03.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed 3 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured with hands & fists, stick and knife in collusion with other co-accused persons, as a result of which, the injured sustained grievous injuries on his person, therefore, present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 09.03.2025, further considering the fact that the main allegations pertain to co-accused individuals Yogesh Yadav, Virendra Sahu, and Tajendra Bharti, who allegedly assaulted the injured with a knife, resulting in grievous injuries, so far as present applicant is concerned, present applicant has assaulted the injured with stick, hence, the case of present present applicant is distinguishable from that of the aforementioned co-accused persons, also considering the fact that one of the co-accused persons, namely, Deepak Kosre who assaulted the injured with hands and fists has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 in MCRC No.5180 of 2025, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant 4 is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant-Charandas, involved in Crime No. 34/2025 registered at Police Station Magarlod, 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), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 25 and 27 of 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 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 certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil