1 2025:CGHC:14815 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2442 of 2025 Dadhyaraj Urf Motu S/o Manchan Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Anand Nagar, Jagriti Nagar Bhilai, Smriti Nagar, Police Station - Supela, District - Durg (C.G.) (Fathers name of the applicant is wrongly mentioned in the entire impugned sheet, correct name of father is mentioned as per aadhar card) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Police Station Supela, OP - Smriti Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.03.2025 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 arrested in connection with Crime No. 1349/2024 registered at Supela, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 118(1), 119(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.03.28 17:17:41 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant reported that on 19.12.2024, at 10 p.m., he was leaving a liquor shop with Durgesh Kumar when a boy approached them, asking for money to buy liquor. After refusing, the boy allegedly abused the complainant and, along with others, attempted to assault them with a knife. The complainant was stabbed multiple times, suffering serious injuries to their right hip, thigh, and other body parts. The incident was reported to the police station, leading to the registration of the offence and the arrest of the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that although the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured with a knife, the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. He also submits that the applicant has 07 criminal antecedents, 02 cases are of the preventive nature, in 01 case he has already been acquitted and remaining 04 cases are pending trial. He further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 20.12.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He further submits that looking to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further, the fact that although the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured with a knife, the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature, moreover, regarding the applicant's criminal antecedents, he has four pending cases, further the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 20.12.2024, conclusion of the trial may takes some more time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Dadhyaraj Urf Motu, involved in Crime No. 1349/2024 registered at Supela, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 118(1), 119(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 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 him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (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