1 2025:CGHC:21467 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3587 of 2025 Komal Soni S/o Lakhan Lal Soni Aged About 34 Years R/o Chandniyapara, Janjgir, Tehsil And Police Station- Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa, C.G. --- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, C.G. --- Non-Applicant Along with MCRC No. 3606 of 2025 Vijay @ Pappu Soni S/o Arjunlal Soni Aged About 40 Years R/o Soni Chal Chaupati Ward P.S. Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Champa, Distict - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate along with Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.05.2025 1. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 85/2025, registered at Police Station : Champa, Distict - Janjgir - Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 309(4), 351(3), 109 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Manendra Vishwakarma, lodged a report at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), alleging that he had taken the car belonging to Manju Soni for washing and had kept it with him. When he went to return the car near Chaupati to Manju Soni, the present applicants and others allegedly abused and assaulted him, accusing him of unnecessarily keeping the car for a prolonged period. It is further alleged that the applicant, namely Vijay @ Pappu Soni, assaulted the complainant with a baseball bat, and another applicant,namely Komal Soni assaulted him with fists and hands, due to which the victim sustained injuries on his head, right knee, and right waist. Based on these allegations, a criminal case was registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsels for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and have not committed any offence; a false report has been 3 lodged against the applicants. It is relevant to mention that the complainant himself has stated that he had kept the car belonging to Manju Soni, who is the widow of Late Ramesh Soni and the daughter-in-law of co-accused Arjunlal Soni. The alleged incident occurred due to grave and sudden provocation, which cannot be attributed to the present applicants, and therefore, there was no premeditation to cause injury. He further submits that they have assaulted the injured with a baseball bat, fists and hands, who has sustained injuries which is non vital part of the body. He further submits that the injured person was received injuries simple in nature nor any in a grievous nature. He further submits that the applicants are in jail since 13.03.2025, the applicant, namely, Komal Soni has 01 criminal antecedent, in which he has been acquitted and applicant, namely Vijay @ Pappu Soni has no criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. They further submits that applicant, namely Vijay @ Pappu Soni, assaulted the complainant with a baseball bat, and another applicant, namely Komal Soni assaulted him with fists and hands, due to which the victim sustained injuries on his head, right knee, and right waist, the injuries were found to be grievous in nature. They also submits that applicant, namely Komal Soni has 01 4 previous criminal antecedent under the 376(2)(n), therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants since 13.03.2025, the fact that both the applicants assaulted the injured with a baseball bat, fists and hands, who has sustained injuries on his head, right knee, and right waist, which is non vital part of the body, the injured person was received injuries simple in nature nor any in a grievous nature, further the applicant, namely, Komal Soni has 01 criminal antecedent, in which he has been acquitted and applicant, namely Vijay @ Pappu Soni has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Komal Soni and Vijay @ Pappu Soni, involved in Crime No. 85/2025, registered at Police Station : Champa, Distict - Janjgir - Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 309(4), 351(3), 109 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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 5 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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail 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 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan