Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:171 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9010 of 2024 Dwarika Mandavi S/o Hemant Kumar Mandavi Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Shiv Mandir Marar Para Balod Police Station and District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ( Wrongly Mentioned As Drarika In The Cause Title of The Impugned Order ) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Balod District- Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Prasson Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02/01/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 207/2024, registered at Police Station – Balod District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 376, 511, 354(B), 506 and 382 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the evening of 04.04.2024, at around 7:54 p.m the accused approached the complainant with wrong intent. It is alleged that the accused made an attempt to outrage the 2 complainant’s modesty by engaging in inappropriate behaviors towards her. Furthermore, during the incident, the accused issued threats to the complainant, explicitly stating that he would take her life and also took the complainant’s money with him. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the victim is a married lady and the allegation which has been levelled against the applicant is that he tried to outrage her modesty and looted some money of the victim, she was having, further the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the next date is fixed for framing of charges against the applicant on 10.01.2025. He further submitted that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents which are pending. The applicant is in jail since 08.04.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the accused made an attempt to outrage the complainant’s modesty by engaging in inappropriate behaviors towards her. Furthermore, during the incident, the accused issued threats to the complainant, explicitly stating that he would take her life and also took the complainant’s money with him. Hence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation made against the applicant and period of detention in jail, and from the perusal of the statement, it transpires that the victim is a 5. 6. 3 married lady and the allegation which has been levelled against the applicant is that he tried to outrage her modesty and looted some money of the victim, she was having, further the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the next date is fixed for framing of charges against the applicant on 10.01.2025, also the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, the applicant is in jail since 08.04.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Dwarika Mandavi involved in Crime No. 207/2024, registered at Police Station – Balod District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 376, 511, 354(B), 506 and 382 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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 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 4 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. 8. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti