Naveen Jaiswal S/o Rajesh Jaiswal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Madna Depo( Gaurela) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gaurela, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi, C.G. --- Non
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:44110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5988 of 2025 Naveen Jaiswal S/o Rajesh Jaiswal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Madna Depo( Gaurela), P.S. Gaurela, District Gaurela - Pendra - Marwahi C.G. --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gaurela, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi, C.G. --- Non-applicant(s) MCRC No. 6008 of 2025 Naveen Jaiswal S/o Rajesh Jaiswal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Madna Depo (Gaurela), P.S. Gaurela, District - Gaurela, - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through , P.S. Gaurela, District - Gaurela, - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicants/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/08/2025 Order on Board 2 1. Since the above two bail applications are arising out of same incidents registered at same police station and also the applicant is same in above two bail applications but their crime numbers are different, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicant has preferred these First Bail Applications under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.109/2025 and Crime No.188/2025 respectively, registered at Police Station- Gaurela, District- Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305, 331(4), 3(5) of BNS. 2023. 3. In MCRC No. 5988/2025, the case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Jiya Ram Sahu has lodged report that on 05.05.2025, the complainant left home with his family at around 8:00 PM to attend his nephew Kailash Sahu's marriage ceremony in Pateratola village. The wedding procession occurred at night, and his wife stayed overnight at the marriage house. On 06.05.2025 at around 6:30 A.M., his wife returned home with sister- in-law Pooja Sahu. Upon opening the lock, they found the kitchen door open and the store room light bulb broken. In the bedroom, the cupboard door was broken, and were stolen cash Rs. 10,000/-, gold jewellery worth of Rs. 2,40,000/- and DVR of the CCTV camera installed in the house where the total loss amounts of Rs. 2,50,000/-.Therefore, the aforementioned case has been registered against the applicant. 4. In MCRC No. 6008/2025, the case of the prosecution in brief is that 3 the complainant Fazal Ilahi, lodged report that on 05.07.2025 at about 08:00 Ρ.Μ., The complainant and his family locked their house and went to their old house at Purana Gaurela. on returning home on 06.07.2025 at about 1:00 PM, after leaving with his family the previous evening, he found the lock of his gate broken and the door latch damaged. Two iron cupboards inside were broken open, and gold and silver ornaments along with 1,40,000 cash, totalling approximately ₹2,20,000, were stolen by unknown thieves. Based on such, an FIR has been registered against the applicant for the aforementioned offences. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that two cases have been registered against the applicant for the same offence by same police station and both cases have been listed today for hearing. He submits that there is no evidence of record to suggest the involvement of the present applicant in the crime in any manner. He further submits that the applicant has never been involved in any such activity or incident as alleged. Further the FIR has been registered against an unknown person and the name of the present applicant does not find mention therein. The applicant has been falsely and maliciously implicated in both cases. He further submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents under the IPC in which he has already been acquitted which has been explained in para 4(A) of bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.07.2025. He further submits that the co- accused has already been granted bail by the learned Sessions 4 Court however, rejected the case of the present applicant on the ground of criminal antecedents, and now in which he has already been acquitted and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and some gold ornaments have been recovered from the possession of the applicant on the basis of memorandum statement. He further submit that looking to the seriousness of this case, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that two cases have been registered against the applicant for the same offence by same police station and both cases have been listed today for hearing, further it appears that the co- accused, who is main accused has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court however, rejected the cases of the applicant on the ground of criminal antecedents of the applicant because the applicant had two criminal antecedents under the IPC and now in which he has been already been acquitted furthermore, in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 11.07.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am 5 inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 9. Let applicant, Naveen Jaiswal, involved in Crime No.109/2025 and Crime No.188/2025 respectively, registered at Police Station- Gaurela, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305, 331(4), 3(5) of BNS. 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in each case 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 6 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (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. 10. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal