1 2025:CGHC:11210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1853 of 2025 Ravishankar Mahanandiya S/o Shankar Mahanandiya Aged About 32 Years R/o R.K. Nagar, Raigada, P.S. And District Raigada, Odisha. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.03.2025 1. This is the Second 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. 346/2024 registered at Police Station – D.D. Naagar, District Raipur (C.G.) offence under Sections 331(4), 305(4) and 417(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 6987 of 2024 was rejected on the ground that the applicant has criminal antecedents of the similar nature by this Court vide order dated ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.03.07 12:35:10 +0530 2 11.12.2024. 3. The prosecution's story, in brief, is that complainant Suman Tiwari lodged a report at D.D. Nagar Police Station, Raipur, alleging that on the night of August 27-28, 2024, an unknown person broke into her house and stole gold and silver ornaments, as well as Rs. 10,000/- in cash. Based on this report, offenses under Sections 331(4), 305(4), and 417(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, were registered against an unknown person. During the investigation, the applicant and other co-accused individuals were arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the earlier bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2024 in MCRC No, 6987 of 2024 by this Hon’ble Court. He submits that despite being summoned by the learned trial Court, the prosecution witnesses have not appeared for recording their evidence before the trial Court. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 11.09.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail. 5. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that despite being summoned by the trial Court, the prosecution witnesses have not appeared for recording their evidence before the trial Court. Moreover, the applicant is in jail since 11.09.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant – Ravishankar Mahanandiya, involved in Crime No. 346/2024 registered at Police Station – D.D. Naagar, District Raipur (C.G.) offence under Sections 331(4), 305(4) and 417(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 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 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 certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek