Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6753 of 2025 Ramavtar Verma S/o Late Shri Jhururam Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Sarva, Thana- Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN (C.G.) versus ... Applicant(s) The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28/08/2025 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. 222/2025 registered at Police Station Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 333, 108, 190, 191(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on March 31, 2025, the 2 complainant, Kusum Sahu, lodged a report at Police Station Kasdol stating that at around 3:30 PM on the same day, she, her sister-in- law Rameshwar Sahu, her sister-in-law's sister Tuleshwari Sahu, and her father-in-law Chandrika Prasad Sahu were present at their home. At that time, Yogendra Vimal Dewangan, Pankaj Dewangan, and others from Village Katagi arrived and forcibly entered their home. They allegedly abused her father-in-law, Chandrika Prasad Sahu, using obscene language and physically assaulted him, stating that he was occupying land and not allowing them to store sand. Due to the physical and mental harassment, Chandrika Prasad Sahu consumed poison to end his life. The accused fled the scene upon seeing this. Chandrika Prasad Sahu was taken to the government hospital in Kasdol for treatment, where he died. Based on the complainant's report, a case was registered, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused, including Yogendra Vimal Dewangan, Pankaj Dewangan, and others. Hence, the bail application. 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 the identically situated co- accused, namely, Pankaj Dewangan has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2025 in MCRC No.6211 of 2025. The applicant is in jail since 08.05.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for 3 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, along with the other co-accused persons, proceeded to the residence of the deceased, where a quarrel ensued and the deceased was allegedly assaulted by the applicant and other co-accused persons, as a result of which, the deceased purportedly committed suicide by consuming poison, the said fact is further corroborated by the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it prima facie appears that the applicant, along with the other co-accused persons, proceeded to the residence of the deceased, where a quarrel ensued and the deceased was allegedly assaulted by the applicant and other co- accused persons, as a result of which, the deceased purportedly committed suicide by consuming poison the said fact is further corroborated by the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, but considering the fact that co-accused, namely, namely, Pankaj Dewangan has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2025 in MCRC No.6211 of 2025 and the case of present applicant identical to that of the aforementioned co-accused and the applicant has no criminal antecedent, further he is languishing in jail since 08.05.2025, charge-sheet has been filed 7. 8. 4 in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Let the Applicant-Ramavtar Verma, involved in Crime No. 222/2025 registered at Police Station Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 333, 108, 190, 191(2) 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. 9. 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