1 2025:CGHC:42190 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3714 of 2025 • Israel Kumar S/o S. Anand Rao Aged About 36 Years R/o Camp-01, Pragati Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Padmanabhpur, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/08/2025 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.92/2025 registered at Police Station- Padamnabhpur, District-Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(5), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of BNS,2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant received call from unknown number wherein it was alleged that the Applicant had demanded money from the complainant in order to grant protection to the Pushpendra Patel, relative of the Complainant. It is also alleged VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.08.22 11:08:43 +0530 2 that the Applicant alongwith other co-accused person demanded money from the Complainant on the ground that his relative is being assaulted in Jail and in order to protect him money was demanded which was transferred by the Complainant through online mode. It is submitted that the mobile numbers mentioned in the FIR from which the calls were made or the number on which the amount was transferred does not belong to the present applicant and therefore it clearly indicates that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the commission of the present offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in crime in question. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation levelled against that applicant used to extort money from the family members of prisoners, who are involved in criminal cases and was directed to be deposited some money in accounts of the applicant, and stated that only Rs. 500/- transferred in the account of the applicant and the said fact has also been admitted by the learned State counsel. He is in jail since 02.04.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that applicant used to extort money from the family members of prisoners, who are involved in criminal cases and was directed to be deposited some money in accounts of the applicant, and stated that only Rs. 500/- transferred in the account of the applicant but looking to the conduct of the applicant, she is not entitled for grant of bail in this case. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the present applicant and from the perusal of the case diary, it transpires that only Rs.500/- transferred in the account of the applicant and the said fact has also been admitted by the learned State counsel, applicant is in jail since 02.04.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicant – Ishreal Kumar, involved in Crime No.92/2025 registered at Police Station-Padamnabhpur, District-Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(5), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of BNS,2023., be released on bail on their furnishing a 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 sufficient 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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali