1 2025:CGHC:1484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 159 of 2025 1. Mukesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Shatruhan Verma Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Milauni, Post Maro, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh At Present Address Shiv Bihar Colony, Boriyakhurd, P.S. Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Lokesh Kumar Verma S/o Shatruhan Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Milauni, Post Maro, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh At Present Address Shiv Bihar Colony, Boriyakhurd, P.S. Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ...Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/01/2025 1 The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.10 16:19:36 +0530 2 No. 727/2024, registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351, 115(2), 109 and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant had lodged report to the concerned Police Station with intend that at the time of incident, there was simple injuries arose between the accused persons and injured person regarding work subject and thereafter, accused persons have assaulted upon the injured person by knife, by causing injuries received upon injured persons. Based upon such report, the concerned Police Station has registered above offence against the applicants. 3 It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the applicants are friend of the complainant and there was simple dispute arose between parties but the applicant have neither assaulted upon his relative members, nor committed any offence without any sufficient reason. He also submits that the injured person were received injuries committed by main accused person not by present applicant and injuries has found simple in nature, further the complainant has filed no objection for release on bail to the present applicants before the trial Court. Copy of objection of the complainant annexed as Annexure A/2 of this bail applicant. It is also submitted that the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents .He later submitted that the charge-sheet has 3 been filed and the applicants are in jail since 23.09.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4 On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application. She further submits that at the time of incident, there was simple dispute arose between the accused persons and injured person regarding work subject and thereafter, accused persons have assaulted upon the injured person by knife. Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 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 injured person is the brother-in-law of the applicants and further the injured/complainant, namely, Arun Kashyap has filed affidavit for no objection for release on bail to the present applicants, further, the applicants have no previous antecedents, the charge- sheet has been filed and they are in jail since 23.09.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 - Mukesh Kumar Verma and Lokesh Kumar Verma, involved in Crime No. 727/2024, registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable 4 under Sections 296, 351, 115(2), 109 and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 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 5 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 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. 8 Office 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 Preeti