Sarguja, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station Officer Chando District Bal
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6089 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar Gupta S/o Shankar Sao Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Nagam P.S. and Tahsil - Lunda District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station Officer Chando District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advcoate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.05 12:05:32 +0530 04.08 .202 5 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 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. 14/2025, registered at Police Station – Station House Officer – Chando, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 281, 125(A), 125(B), 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 39/192, 56/192, 190 (2-B), 184, 180, 146/196, 119/177, 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant, Hemant Kujur, 2 lodged a complaint at Police Station Balrampur, which was registered as a zero FIR and later transferred to Police Station Chando as Crime No. 14/2025. He alleged that Bus bearing registration No. CG 15 A 7322 was being used to transport approximately 60–65 wedding guests from Dharanagar to Bargarh, Jharkhand—far beyond its permitted capacity. On 15.05.2025, while traveling on the newly constructed and hazardous Kanthighat road, the driver, despite being aware of the vehicle’s poor condition and its overloaded state, drove recklessly and lost control. As a result, the bus veered off the road and fell down a slope. The accident led to the deaths of three individuals, including the complainant’s wife, and caused injuries to around 45 others. The complainant himself also sustained injuries. Based on this complaint, offences were registered, and the matter was taken up for investigation. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant is neither the owner nor the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of incident. He further submits that the applicant has not been mentioned in the alleged FIR, but the applicant has been implicated in the aforesaid FIR only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused. He further submits that the co-accused namely, Zaharuddin Khan has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 1012/2025 and another co-accused namely, Hansu Khakha has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 13.07.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application 3 5. 6. and submits the charge-sheet has been filed in this case but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail. He further submits that the applicant/accused knowing that the condition of the vehicle bus bearing registration No. CG-15-A-7322 was not good and was not fit to drive, gave it to the driver/co-accused Vipin for booking for going to the weeding procession, due to which the bus met with an accident and on account of the same a total of 03 people died due to injuries caused by the said incident, and about 45 other people who had come from outside were injured, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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 there is no any criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, and the co-accused namely, Zaharuddin Khan has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 1012/2025 and another co-accused namely, Hansu Khakha has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025 passed in MCRC No. 4914/2025, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 13.07.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Rajesh Kumar Gupta, involved in Crime No. 14/2025, registered at 4 Police Station – Chando District- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 281, 125(A), 125(B), 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 39/192, 56/192, 190 (2-B), 184, 180, 146/196, 119/177, 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles 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 sufficient 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 of 5 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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti