Bharatpur Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Manendragarh, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:109 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8905 of 2024 Nitin Agrawal S/o Rakesh Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o Jhagrakhand Road, Manendragarh, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Manendragarh, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shobhit Koshta and Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.01.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.346/2024, registered at Police Station Manendragarh, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 121/1, 132, 221, 296, 351(2) of 2 the BNS. 2. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that the complainant Tehsildar, Manendragarh lodged the report against the applicant that on 29/11/24, encroachment removal drive was being carried out in National Highway No.- 43 which was going on for one week. That, on 29/11/24, at the time of survey, it was found that the applicant has encroached the road and drainage situated on government land, when the applicant was asked to remove the encroachment, he started hurling abuses and assaulted the revenue authorities and thereafter a case was registered against the applicant for the aforesaid offence. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as reported by the police of PS- Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, C.G. Further, the entire incident is false as the applicant and his family members are the owners of the disputed land and there was no notice given to the applicant neither any revenue proceedings for removal of encroachment was initiated against the applicant and without any proof, the destruction of applicant’s goods was carried out which was resisted by the applicant and due to which the false case has been lodged against the him. Further, on the date of incident, the applicant along with his mother was running the shop by the name of R. K. Associate and was running the business of selling iron bars, cements, Excavator seats. When the Tehsildar on date of incident asked them to 3 remove the seats, it was stated by the applicant that the workers has gone for lunch and as soon as they come back it would be removed. However, the Tehsildar did not give the time and destroyed the Excavator seats due to which the applicant suffer loss of about Rs 1, 47, 600/- and when he stated that he will take action in this regard, as a counter blast, the case has been registered against the applicant. The applicant is qualified Chartered Accountant and has good reputation in society and his wife is advanced stage pregnant and there is no one to take care of her. That, without any notice, the applicant without any proof of encroachment is being harassed by the complainant as he has illegally destroyed the Excavator seats and in order to protect himself, he has lodged the false FIR against the applicant. Lastly, the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.11.2024, though the charge-sheet has been filed, but the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the applicants has encroached the road and drainage situated on government land and when the same was encroached by the revenue authorities, the applicant assaulted and abused them. Hence, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that counter allegations have been levelled by both the parties against each other, charge-sheet has already been filed and 4 the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.11.2024 hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case without commenting on the merits of the case. 6. Let applicant, Nitin Agrawal, involved in Crime No. 346/2024, registered at Police Station Manendragarh, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 121/1, 132, 221, 296, 351(2) of the BNS, 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 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 his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such 5 proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of 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 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. 7. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. S Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice . . Kunal