Ashish Singh @ Assu Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

: Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. VAIBHAV SINGH SINGH Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

16.09.2025 Order on Board

This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 383/2025 registered at Police Station : Akaltara District – Janjgir- Champa C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2),115(2),333 & 119(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

As per the case of the prosecution, the F.I.R. was lodged on

19.08.2025 by one Mr. Mukesh Kumar Nayak against the present 2 applicant, in respect of an incident alleged to have been occurred on the same day at about 5:00 P.M. It is alleged that the applicant, being under the influence of intoxication, entered the Government Liquor Shop at Akaltara and started abusing the complainant, while simultaneously demanding money for consuming liquor. It is further alleged that the applicant extended threats to the staff of the said Government Liquor Shop, and in the course of such conduct, he struck the refrigerator and attempted to throw the printer, but was restrained in time. Consequently, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged.

The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, where the allegations, even if taken at face value, pertain only to minor offences such as alleged abusive language, intimidation, and damage to property, without any injury, use of weapons, or element of moral turpitude. The prosecution case rests solely on the statements of the complainant and staff of the government liquor shop, who are public servants, leaving no scope for tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The medical report shows only simple injuries, and there is no CCTV or corroborative evidence, making the prosecution version doubtful. The applicant has been in custody since 20.08.2025, and continued detention for such trivial allegations would amount to punishment before conviction, violating Article 21 of the Constitution. The rejection of bail by the Sessions Judge solely on account of a prior antecedent is unsustainable in law, as mere registration of a case without conviction cannot justify denial of bail, as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayub Khan vs State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC Online 3763). The applicant is a permanent resident of Village 3 Kotmisonar, with no risk of absconding, and is ready to furnish sureties and comply with any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the case diary, the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature, and the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has been in jail since 20.08.2025, and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case.

Let applicant, Ashish Singh @ Assu Singh, involved in Crime No. 383/2025 registered at Police Station : Akaltara District – Janjgir- Champa C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2),115(2),333 & 119(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 (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 sufficient 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 deliberate or without sufficient 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.

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav