Dalli Rajhara Ps Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Of
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:48058 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7527 of 2025 Khushal Nanhare Alias Sinni S/o Rahesh Nanhare Aged About 32 Years R/o Dalli Rajhara Ps Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Dallirajhara District Balod Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant For Non-Applicant/State
Legal Reasoning
granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 5077/2025 vide order dated 04.09.2025. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is submitted that out of 10 cases, 8 cases have
Arguments
: Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.09.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.157/2025, registered at Police Station Dallirajhara, District- Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 140(4), 142, 296, 351(2), 115(2) 3(5), 109, 117(2) of B.N.S. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant, Varandeep alias Karan, lodged a written report at Police Station Rajhara stating 2 that, due to a dispute relating to the marriage with the sister of the main accused, Khushahal Lonhare, the said accused, along with his associates, abducted him and took him to the forest near Gondli Canal, where they assaulted him. The accused persons further abused him in filthy language, threatened to kill him, and thereafter took the complainant, in an injured condition, to the residence of the main accused Khushahal at Pandar Dalli, where he was again subjected to assault. Subsequently, they locked him inside a room and fled from the spot. Based upon such, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the accused persons. 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 the allegation against the applicant along with the co- accused is that they assaulted the injured, resulting in a fracture on the middle finger of the injured. It is further submitted that the co- accused, namely Vishal @ Lucky Chaturvedi, has already been
Decision
already been disposed of, one case is stated to be pending, and another case does not pertain to the applicant. It is further submitted that in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and the applicant has been in custody since 21.05.2025. Considering that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail 3 application of the applicant and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and further the applicant has 10 criminal antecedents which has been explained in the bail application and further from the evidence available in the charge-sheet, it is revealed that the accused persons, in a pre-planned manner, abducted the complainant Varandeep and inflicted grievous injuries upon him. During investigation, the police also added the charge of attempt to murder. The complainant was found in an injured condition, locked inside the house of the main accused Khushahal/applicant and had the police not reached the spot in time, there was a strong likelihood of his death as such, the present applicant is a habitual offender and is not entitled for grant of bail. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that the allegation against the applicant along with the co-accused is that they assaulted the injured, resulting in a fracture on the middle finger of the injured and further considering the fact that the co- accused, namely Vishal @ Lucky Chaturvedi, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 5077/2025 vide order dated 04.09.2025 and so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it has been explained that out of 10 cases, 8 cases have already been disposed of, one case is stated to be pending, 5. 6. 7. 8. 4 and another case does not pertain to the applicant and in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and the applicant has been in custody since 21.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant -Khushal Nanhare alias Sinni, involved in Crime No.157/2025, registered at Police Station Dallirajhara, District- Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 140(4), 142, 296, 351(2), 115(2) 3(5), 109, 117(2) of B.N.S, 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 5 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 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 copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice