Mauhar District Satna, Madhya Pradesh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lawan District Baloda
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8544 of 2024 1 - Jogini Malar W/o Kamlesh Malar Aged About 45 Years R/o Mauhar Ward No. 1, Police Station - Mauhar District Satna, Madhya Pradesh 2 - Kamni Malar D/o Arjun Malar Aged About 18 Years R/o Mauhar Police Station - Mauhar District Satna, Madhya Pradesh 3 - Damini Malar W/o Abhiman Malar Aged About 25 Years R/o Khijri,
Legal Reasoning
Police Station Kisri, District Giridih, Jharkhand 4 - Radhna Malar W/o Suraj Malar Aged About 25 Years R/o Mauhar Police Station - Mauhar District Satna, Madhya Pradesh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lawan District Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Smt. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/01/2025 2 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 414/2024 registered at Police Station Lawan District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged an written report on 01.10.2024 alleging that two unknown women came to their house and said that our company takes photographs of old utensils and jewelry and publicizes them and returns the goods like utensils and jewelry as reward, on which complainant wife gave three brass plates, brass bowl and her 13 leaf necklace kept in his house to those women, after that, the women said that they will give utensils and jewelry in the evening but they have not return the goods. Due to which complainant realized that they have been cheated. Thereafter, the offence has been registered against them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that eight of the co-accused persons, namely, Smt. Belpati, Nirmala Devi @ Nirjala, Ashok, Antaradevi, Smt. Savita Devi, Awadesh Malar, Suraj Malar and Abhiman Malar have already been granted bail by this Court vide 3 order dated 20.11.2024, 25.11.2024 and 20.12.2024 in MCRC Nos. 8014/2024, 8029/2024, 8149/2024 and 8253/2024 and the case of the present applicants are similar to that of the co-accused persons. The applicants are in jail since 08.10.2024, the applicants have no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicants have committed theft in various houses, further the applicant Jogini Malar is having two criminal antecedents and applicant Damini Malar is having one criminal antecedent of similar nature, therefore, the applicants are 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 applicants since 08.10.2024, also considering the fact that eight of the co- accused persons, namely, Smt. Belpati, Nirmala Devi @ Nirjala, Ashok, Antaradevi, Smt. Savita Devi, Awadesh Malar, Suraj Malar and Abhiman Malar have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2024, 25.11.2024 and 20.12.2024 in MCRC Nos. 8014/2024, 8029/2024, 8149/2024 and 8253/2024 and the case of the present applicants are similar to that of the co-accused 4 persons, further the applicant Jogini Malar has two more cases pending against her and applicant Damini Malar has one case pending against her of similar nature, against which MCRC Nos.8354/2024 and 8422/2024 have been filed by her, which are also listed today and the same are allowed today itself by this Court and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants-Jogini Malar, Kamni Malar, Damini Malar and Radhna Malar involved in Crime No. 414/2024 registered at Police Station Lawan District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (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 her under Section 269 5 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse 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 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 them in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil