Gaaji Khan S/o Shabbir Khan Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 1707, Ward v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:49464 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7239 of 2025 Gaaji Khan S/o Shabbir Khan Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 1707, Ward No. 45, Gousiya Chowk, Nayapara Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Concerned P.S. Kotra Road, Distt. Raigarh) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 26.09.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for taking additional documents on record pursuant to order dated 11.09.2025 2. 3. passed by this Court. On due consideration, the aforesaid IA is allowed. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application 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. 500/2024, registered at Police Station : Kotra Road, 2 District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 303(2), 238, 317(4), 324(5), 3(5) of BNS and Section 130(3)/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 4. The earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 3146/2025, vide order dated 26.06.2025 on the ground of one criminal antecedent under the IPC in which after releasing on bail the applicant not cooperate with the trial and absconding in that case. Hence this second bail application. 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.12.2024, the complainant namely Mahbub Khan lodged an FIR to the effect that he is owner of a Truck bearing No. CG-11-AB-1587, which was parked near Saarthi Petrol Pump for the past seven days due to the ill health of his driver. Further, on 06.12.2024 at around 10 PM in night, he saw his Truck at the parked place but on 07.12.024 at around 5 AM, he found that his Truck was not at the parked place, which was not traced even after inquiry, as such, the complainant filed a report alleging theft of his Truck by unknown persons. Accordingly, an FIR was registered under section 303(2) BNS against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, on the basis of GPS location, the Truck was found in the garage/yard of co-accused person Sheikh Hamid @ Guddu. Thereafter on the basis of memorandum statement of the aforesaid co- accused, the applicant herein and other accused persons were apprehended, wherein they admitted their guilt. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second 3 bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.06.2025 passed in MCRC No. 3146 of 2024, on the ground that the applicant was wanted in another criminal case registered as Crime No. 56 of 2017 for offences punishable under Sections 406/34 of the IPC, and a permanent warrant of arrest had been issued against him. The said warrant was subsequently recalled, and bail was granted to the applicant vide order dated 16.07.2025, although the date was erroneously mentioned as 16.07.2024 in the said order and with respect to the same, he has filed an I.A. 01/2025, which is an application for taking additional documents on record pursuant to order dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Court. He further submits the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1820/2025, vide order dated 06.03.2025 and the present applicant has been implicated only on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused and he is is in jail since 17.12.2024 and charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 7. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court however, looking to the allegation levelled against the applicant, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, 4 nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that this is the second bail application filed by the applicant and the first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.06.2025 passed in MCRC No. 3146 of 2024, on the ground that the applicant was wanted in another criminal case registered as Crime No. 56 of 2017 for offences punishable under Sections 406/34 of the IPC, and a permanent warrant of arrest had been issued against him and the said warrant was subsequently recalled and bail was granted to the applicant vide order dated 16.07.2025, although the date was erroneously mentioned as 16.07.2024 in the said order and with respect to the same, he has filed an I.A. 01/2025, which is an application for taking additional documents on record pursuant to order dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Court and he filed correct order date and further considering the fact that the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1820/2025, vide order dated 06.03.2025 and the present applicant has been implicated only on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused and he is is in jail since 17.12.2024 and charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 10. Let applicant, Gaaji Khan, involved in Crime No. 500/2024, registered at Police Station : Kotra Road, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 303(2), 238, 317(4), 324(5), 3(5) of BNS and Section 130(3)/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 5 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, 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 6 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. 11. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice