1 2025:CGHC:20291 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3394 of 2025 Amit Kumar @ Mita S/o Karambir Aged About 35 Years R/o Rohtak Ward No. 10, District Rohatak, (Hariyana) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. (through video- conferencing). For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.05.2025 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 he has been arrested in connection with Crime No – 371/2024, registered at Police Station – Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 310(2), 61(2) and 193(9) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that, on 15.12.2024, the complainant PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.05.03 10:41:27 +0530 2 Sahabu, lodged the report before the Police Station – Sitapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) against the 2 unknown persons with the allegation that on 15.12.2024 at 03.10 PM, complainant was going from Sitapur to Dumrabhavana on a motorcycles TVS Sport No. CG-15-DT-5381 carrying 02 electricity boards. Near village Bamlaya pond, 02 unknown persons stopped him and asked for a lift. When he stopped, then the accused/appellant showed him something like a gun and robbed his motorcycles worth about Rs. 35,000/- and committed the alleged offence. On the basis of complaint, lodged by the complainant, Police arrested to him and after completing of investigation, police filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the FIR was lodged by the complainant against the unknown person and the name of the present applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. He further submits that no any seized article was recovered from the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedents in which he has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2025 passed in MCRC No. 3361/2025. He also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 25.12.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the 3 documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the FIR was lodged by the complainant against the unknown person and the name of the present applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, further the applicant has one previous criminal antecedents, in which he has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2025 passed in MCRC No. 3361/2025, the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 25.12.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Amit Kumar @ Mita, involved in Crime No – 371/2024, registered at Police Station – Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 310(2), 61(2) and 193(9) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 4 cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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 Preeti