1 2025:CGHC:14375 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2333 of 2025 1 - Pemendra Sahu @ Dadu Sahu S/o Shri Yunesh Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Bajrangpur, Nawagaon, Police Outpost- Chikhli, Tahsil And Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Ganesh Yadav S/o Shri Lalit Ram Yadav Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Bajrangpur, Nawagaon, Police Outpost- Chikhli, Tahsil And Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Outpost- Sukul Daihan, P.S.- Lalbag, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.03.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 04/2025, registered at Police Station : Lalbagh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126, 296, 115, 309, 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant namely Dular Chand Verma lodged a report before the Police Station Lalbag with the averment that he is a resident of village Purena and is a driver by profession. It has been alleged in the complaint that on the date of incident, while the complainant and his friend Takesh Verma were returning back to their village, 4 unknown persons came in a motorcycle and stopped the complainant and committed loot of total Rs. 9000/- from both the persons and also 1 mobile phone belonging to the complainant. It has further been alleged that the present applicant as well as other accused persons assaulted the complainant and his friend through hand, fists and knife. Therefore, offence as mentioned above was registered against the present applicants and they were arrested and after completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant matter though they have not committed any offence. He further submits that the present applicants along with co-accused have assaulted two complainants and committed loot of Rs. 9000/- cash and one mobile phone from the complainants however, the injury sustained by the injured were simple in nature and there is no cash recovery made from the present applicants, the recovery made from the applicant No. 1 i.e. knife and one mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the applicant No. 2 namely Ganesh Yadav, and the conclusion of 3 the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants and submit that the present applicants along with co-accused have assaulted two complainants and committed loot of Rs. 9000/- cash and one mobile phone from the complainants however, the injury sustained by the injured were simple in nature and there is no cash recovery made from the present applicants, but the recovery made from the applicant No. 1 i.e. knife and one mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the applicant No. 2 namely Ganesh Yadav and so far as the criminal antecedent of the applicants are concerned, the applicant No. 1 has only one previous criminal antecedent but looking to the seriousness of this case, the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that the present applicants along with co-accused were assaulted two complainants and committed loot of Rs. 9000/- cash and one mobile phone from the complainants however, the injury sustained by the injured were simple in nature and there is no cash recovery made from the present applicants, the recovery made from the applicant No. 1 i.e. knife and one mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the applicant No. 2 namely Ganesh Yadav, 4 so far as the criminal antecedent of the applicants are concerned, the applicant No. 1 has only one previous criminal antecedent under the Motor Vehicle Act and the applicant No. 2 has no previous record and the present applicants are in jail since 07.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 7. Let applicants, Pemendra Sahu @ Dadu Sahu and Ganesh Yadav, involved in Crime No. 04/2025, registered at Police Station : Lalbagh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126, 296, 115, 309, 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act., be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 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 their presence, proclamation 5 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 deliberated 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal