Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46527 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7255 of 2025 Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Sukharam Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o B.S.U.P. Colony, Rawatpura, Mathpurena, District - Raipur (C.G.) versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. - Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant For Non-Applicant/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate. Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. RAHUL DEWANGAN 11.09.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 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. 520/2025 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 296, 351(2), 115(2) and 3(5), of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.07.2025, at about 9:00 PM, the complainant Ram alias Santosh Dhruv was at home with his wife and his minor son Rakesh (14 years) when the 2 applicant, along with co-accused Manish Rajput and Ravi Yadav, forcibly entered the house armed with belts, abused and threatened the family members, and dragged Rakesh outside against their will. It is alleged that the accused persons took the minor to an under- construction site near Dhebar City, where they assaulted him with fists and belts, causing multiple injuries on his hands, back, head, and legs. Based on the complainant’s report, the police registered FIR No. 520/2025 and arrested the applicant along with the co- accused on 14.07.2025. After investigation, a charge sheet/challan was filed before the competent court against the applicant and the co-accused for the said offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that prior to the registration of the present FIR, the applicant had lodged an FIR against the victim/minor, who used to frequently visit the applicant’s house. In that FIR, it was stated that certain valuable articles, including gold and cash, were found missing, and while the FIR was registered against unknown persons, the name of the victim was mentioned in the body of the FIR on suspicion. It is contended that the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant only as a counterblast to harass and pressurize the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in custody since 14.07.2025, has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already 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 3 respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the minor victim, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., clearly stated that the applicant along with co-accused persons forcibly abducted him and took him to an under-construction site, where they assaulted him with fists and belts, causing injuries to his hands, back, head, and legs. The medical report supports the victim’s version and confirms that the injuries, though simple in nature, were caused by a deliberate assault, 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. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 14.07.2025, the fact that there is a previous dispute between the parties, as the applicant had earlier lodged an FIR wherein the name of the victim was mentioned in connection with the theft of valuables, including gold and cash, which indicates a possibility of false implication in the present case as a counterblast. It is also noted that the injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature, as confirmed by the medical report. The charge-sheet has already been filed, and there are no criminal antecedents reported against him, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant- Sanjay Kumar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 4 520/2025 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 296, 351(2), 115(2) and 3(5), of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on their 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. 5 (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. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice