1 2025:CGHC:23565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4406 of 2025 Puneshwar Khute S/o Shri Dauram Khute Aged About 46 Years (Wrongly Mentioned In The Bail Application As 40 Years As Per Aadhar Card, His Actural Age Is 46 Years,), Caste - Harijan, R/o Mehandi, Police Station And Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Janakpur, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Laweyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.06.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 103/2016 registered at Police Station Janakpur, District – Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 325 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.14 12:08:41 +0530 2 2. According to the prosecution's case, between 19.07.2016, and 20.07.2016, at around 1 a.m., the accused persons—Santosh Kujur, Puneshwar Khute (the present accused/applicant), and Prabhakar—booked a room at the Maa Chand Lodge. When the receptionist/complainant, Ranu Shrivastava, asked for ID proof, the accused persons, who were intoxicated, began arguing and fighting with her. They allegedly assaulted her, causing her to lose four teeth and sustain bodily injuries. The prosecution further alleged that the accused persons looted a gold ring and a mobile phone from the complainant. During the investigation, the police registered an offence against a co-accused, Hemant Goswami, who remains absconding, according to the prosecution. 3. During the police investigation, two accused persons, Santosh Kujur and Prabhakar, were arrested. After investigation, the police filed a final report against them for offences punishable under Sections 325, 397, and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. A charge sheet was filed before the competent court. However, two accused persons, Hemant Goswami and Puneshwar Khute (the present accused/applicant), were declared absconding, and the charge sheet was filed under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janakpur, and registered as Criminal Case No. 180/2016 on 28.11.2016. Given the nature of the offences, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial and transferred as Sessions Trial No. 104/2016 on 29.11.2016. During the trial, the court examined eleven witnesses to prove the case beyond 3 reasonable doubt. On 25.02.2019, the Sessions Judge acquitted two accused persons, Santosh Kujur and Prabhakar Singh, of the charges against them. In the present case, a permanent warrant was issued against the applicant to execute the pending proceedings. The police arrested the present accused/applicant from the address mentioned in the charge sheet and FIR on 25.04.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is no previous offence attributed to the applicant. In fact, apart from this case, no other offence has been registered against him in any police station across the state of Chhattisgarh. He also submits that the applicant did not commit any offense in 2016, when he was employed as a Communication Engineer with American Tower Company (ATC), installing communication towers in the Surguja area. On the date of the alleged incident, he was working in that area but had no involvement in the offence. Notably, the applicant's name was recorded in the FIR while he was working with the same company. He continued working with ATC until 2023-24 and later joined ALTIUS, another company, in 2024. Throughout this period, his address remained the same as mentioned in the FIR and charge sheet. Despite being declared an absconder, the applicant never absconded and resided at the same address mentioned in the FIR and charge sheet. Copies of his salary slips are annexed as Annexure A-2. He further submits that two co-accused, Santosh Kujur and Prabhakar Singh @ Dinesh Singh, were arrested, tried, 4 and acquitted by the learned trial Court on 25.02.2019, after the police examined 11 witnesses and failed to prove the case against them. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 25.04.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application of the applicant and submits that the present applicant, along with other co-accused persons, allegedly committed the offence while intoxicated, assaulting the complainant and looting a gold ring and a mobile phone from her. She also submits that the applicant had been absconding since the time of the incident and was eventually arrested on 25.04.2025, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that present applicant, along with other co-accused persons, allegedly committed the offence while intoxicated, assaulted the complainant and looted a gold ring and a mobile phone from her, moreover, the fact that as the matter pertains to the year 2016 and the applicant has been absconding since the incident took place and arrested on 25.04.2025, there is every likelihood, that if he is granted bail, he will abscond again, and further, hamper the trial, therefore, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 5 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Puneshwar Khute, involved in Crime No. 103/2016 registered at Police Station Janakpur, District – Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 325 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is rejected. 9. 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 Abhishek