1 2025:CGHC:14093 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2309 of 2025 Manoj Mahilange S/o Late Shri Krishna Mahilange Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Hanoda, Ward No. 06, Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg (C.G.) 491001 ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg (C.G.) 491001 ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Curtis Collins, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.03.2025 1. 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. 187/2023 registered at Police Station – Padmanabhpur, District Durg (C.G.) offence under Sections 294, 323, 325, 506, 307 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the FIR was filed by the victim's mother on 26.06.2023, regarding an incident that occurred ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.03.25 10:25:02 +0530 2 on 22.06.2023. According to the FIR, her son Ashok Kumar Jangde left to drop off his friend Khileshwar Chelak at his house around 9:30 pm but didn't return home by 5:30 am the next day. The victim's mother was informed by Pannu Kurre, a village acquaintance, that Ashok was lying near High School Galaxy Apartment. When she questioned Khileshwar Chelak about her son's whereabouts, he gave an unsatisfactory response. The complainant then went to Galaxy Heights Borasi with her daughter and found Ashok sitting in a 112 vehicle; he was later admitted to Sector 09 Hospital on 23.06.2023. After regaining consciousness, Ashok narrated the incident, stating that around 11:30 am in Galaxy Heights, near High School, Ram Prasad Mahilang, Manoj Mahilang, Khileshwar Chelak, and Aman Chelak abused and beat him, causing injuries to his neck, head, and shoulder. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant as been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the FIR was lodged by the victim's mother on 26.06.2023, three days after the incident occurred on 23.06.2023. The FIR was registered for offenses under Sections 294, 506, 323, and 34 of the IPC, and the accused was released on bail. Initially, the applicant was granted bail for offenses under Sections 294, 323, 506, and 34 of the IPC. Later, based on the medical report, an offense under Section 325 of the IPC was added, and another offense under Section 307 was added on 26.12.2024, approximately one year and six months after the incident, based on a query report. He further submits that interestingly, the query report was sent to Dr. Nidhi Shrivastav, who 3 examined the victim and submitted the injury report, on 19.07.2023. However, the query report was submitted on 12.11.2024, three months later, and contradicted the initial report dated 26.03.2023. The initial report mentioned injuries to the left shoulder, multiple abrasions on the face, active bleeding, a wound on the left hand, and an alcohol smell, but did not mention a head injury that could cause death. He further submits that the query report submitted on 12.11.2024, was not prepared by Dr. Nidhi Shrivastav, but by another doctor, Dr. Niranjan Sahu. Dr. Sahu's report, submitted on 20.11.2024, stated that a fracture alone would not cause death. Additionally, the victim's statement was recorded on 18.07.2024, almost a year after the incident. The statement given by the victim after a significant lapse of time may not be reliable. The charge- sheet was filed on 01.08.2024, after a considerable delay, the statement of the complainant has already been recorded, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant along with other co-accused persons have assaulted the son of the complainant due to which he sustained grievous head injuries, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account that the FIR was initially registered against the 4 applicant and other co-accused persons for offenses under Sections 294, 506, 323, and 34 of the IPC, in which the applicant was released on bail by furnishing a bail bond before the concerned police station, furthermore, offenses under Sections 325 and 307 of the IPC were added later, one and a half years after the initial registration, based on the medical report of the injured, moreover, the fact that the statement of the mother of the injured/complainant has already been recorded, and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Manoj Mahilange, involved in Crime No. 187/2023 registered at Police Station – Padmanabhpur, District Durg (C.G.) offence under Sections 294, 323, 325, 506, 307 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under 5 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 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. 8. 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