1 2025:CGHC:19958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2806 of 2025 1 - Goverdhan Prasad Painkara S/o Shri Rama Shankar Painkara Aged About 40 Years, 2 - Sobran Singh Painkara S/o Shri Rama Shankar Painkara Aged About 45 Years, Both R/o Village - Rajpur, Ward No.-3, P.S. And Tahsil - Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Office, Police Station - Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Smt. Deepti Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sakib Ahmed, PL. For objector : Shri Pavas Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01/05/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.05.02 19:45:29 +0530 2 No.42/2025 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 221,132,121(1), 109, 3 (5) of B.N.S. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj had gone for demarcation of the land khasra no. 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/50 rakba 6.484, 3.015, 4.86, 1.376 hectare land at Village Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj on 1/3/2025. The applicants namely Goverdhan Painkara and Sobaran Painkara attempted to crush the members of the team by the Motorcycle for creating obstruction. On account of the same the revenue Inspector got injury in his finger and the team members ran to save their lives Complainant Shri Chandan Singh lodged the F.I.R. against the applicants on 1/3/2025 at 20.16 (8.16 p.m.). Thereby offence has been registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the present case. She would submit that the applicants have neither committed nor participated in any such act, which may amount to any of the offences, mentioned above. She would submit that the evidence collected by the prosecution are also not prima facie sufficient to hold the applicants guilty of the aforesaid offences. She would submit that the present applicants had just tried to persuade verbally the team about the correct facts regarding their land and records at the time of demarcation. She would submit that the applicants are in jail since 01/03/2025 and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. He would submit that the injury were simple in nature. 5. Learned counsel for the objector also oppose the prayer for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, also considering the fact that the injury were found to be simple in nature, period of detention of the applicants since 01/03/2025 and trial is likely to some time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the applicant No.1 Goverdhan Prasad Painkara and applicant No.2, Sobran Singh Painkara involved in Crime No.42/2025 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 221,132,121(1), 109, 3 (5) of B.N.S, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond with two sureties 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 4 case of their absence, without sufficient 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 under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails 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 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 them in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE gouri