1 2025:CGHC:18854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3175 of 2025 Raja Singh @ Rupesh Dhankar S/o Tilak Dhankar Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Raja Talab, P.S. Civil Line Raipur, Permanent R/o Village Chilhati, Post Mopka, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. MCRC No. 3212 of 2025 Yugalkishore Dewangan S/o Shri Chheduram Dewangan Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Beltukri, Ps. Rajim District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Aamanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 25/04/2025 1. Since the above two bail applications are arising out of same crime number, same police station and same offence so they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.432/2024, registered at Police Station Amanaka, District: Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 and 3(5) of BNS. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant has made written complaint before the concerned police station stating therein that the applicant is running as property dealing and on assurance of the applicant, the complainant has deposited amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of Manju Devi Agrawal for execution of registered sale deed to the another land, but the registered sale deed has not been executed. Based upon the written complaint, the police has registered the offence under Section 318 (4), 338, 336(3), 340, 3(5) of B.N.S. against the accused persons and only on the basis of merely suspicious, present applicant has been made accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. They further submits that the compromise has been done between the parties and no objection application has been moved by the 3 complainant on the bail application before the learned trial Court. They further submits that the co-accused namely Rakesh Kansari has already been granted bail by this Court being MCRC No. 2454/2025 vide order dated 27.03.2025 and the case of the applicants are similar to that of the co-accused therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicants and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court further the co-accused namely Rakesh Kansari, has already been granted bail by this Court being MCRC No. 2454/2025 vide order dated 27.03.2025 and the case of the applicants are identical to that of the co-accused thus, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 8. Let the Applicants- Raja Singh @ Rupesh Dhankar and Yugal Kishore Dewangan involved in Crime No.432/2024, registered at Police Station Amanaka, District: Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 and 3(5) of 4 BNS, be released on bail on their 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 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 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 5 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. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal