Upadhyay Nagar, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur C.G v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Amanaka, Dist. Raipur
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:48359 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7355 of 2025 1 - Pinki Thakur W/o Late Sudhir Thakur Aged About 43 Years R/o H. No. 334, Sector-01, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur C.G. 2 - Shivam Thakur S/o Late Sudhir Thakur Aged About 24 Years R/o H. No. 334, Sector-01, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur C.G. 3 - Ku. Shivani Thakur D/o Late Sudhir Thakur Aged About 23 Years R/o H. No. 334, Sector-01, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Amanaka, Dist. Raipur ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.09.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with 2 Crime No. 161/2025, registered at Police Station : Amanaka, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 333, 296, 351(2), 221, 121(1), 132, 109(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a complaint was lodged by an employee of the Municipal Corporation alleging that the applicants, along with one juvenile, entered the ofÏce premises, obstructed the functioning of government work, and also assaulted the staff. On the basis of the said report, an FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 161/2025, and subsequently, Section 109(1) of the BNS was added. 3. According to the applicants, the true facts, as submitted, are that on 04.06.2025, the Municipal Corporation, without issuing any prior notice, demolished the hotel of the applicants. Although the construction was treated as encroachment, the Corporation was legally bound to issue notice and provide reasonable time to the applicants to remove or secure their articles and goods. However, without following due process, the Corporation demolished the hotel and fraudulently took away the refrigerator, stove, six gas cylinders, utensils and other articles belonging to the applicants, without preparing any panchnama or following proper procedure. When the applicants objected to the said action and demanded return of their articles, the staff refused to do so, and in order to avoid returning the seized articles, the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they are innocent 3 and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that applicant No.1 is the mother of applicant Nos.2 and 3. As per the allegations, the applicants entered the ofÏce premises of the Municipal Corporation and assaulted two persons, namely including injured Niru Soni, who sustained injuries. The medical examination of the injured reflects that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. He further submits that initially, an FIR was registered against the applicants under Sections 121(1), 132, 221, 296, 3(5), 333 and 351(2) of the BNS. Subsequently, at the time of filing of the charge-sheet, Section 109 of the BNS was also added. It is further submitted that the applicants are in custody since 05.06.2025 and as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that on 04.06.2025 the applicants, armed with lathis, forcibly entered the ofÏce of Municipal Corporation Zone No.08, abused and assaulted the staff, caused injuries to two government employees, damaged property worth about ₹5,00,000/–, and even threatened to set the ofÏce on fire. The incident was committed in retaliation to the lawful removal of their illegally operated hotel/dhaba from public road. She further submits that the applicants have two criminal antecedents each. Considering the gravity of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, their bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- 4 diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants and the fact that the applicant No.1 is the mother of applicant Nos.2 and 3, and as per the prosecution case, the applicants entered the ofÏce premises of the Municipal Corporation and assaulted two persons, including injured Niru Soni, who sustained injuries, the medical examination of the injured shows that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. It is further noted that initially an FIR was registered under Sections 121(1), 132, 221, 296, 3(5), 333 and 351(2) of the BNS and subsequently, at the time of filing of the charge-sheet, Section 109 of the BNS was also added. The charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is also observed that the applicants have two criminal antecedents each and are in custody since 05.06.2025. Considering that the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, I am inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the present applicants. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. Let applicants, Pinki Thakur, Shivam Thakur and Ku. Shivani Thakur, involved in Crime No. 161/2025, registered at Police Station : Amanaka, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 333, 296, 351(2), 221, 121(1), 132, 109(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 8. 9. 5 (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberated or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse 6 of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 10. 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