1 2025:CGHC:1777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 223 of 2025 Arvind Sharma S/o Naresh Sharma Aged About 28 Years Occupation- Carpenter, R/o Near Sanjay Park Ambikapur, P.S. and Tehsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station- Kotwali, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/01/2025 1 The applicant has preferred this Second 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. 324/2024, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 323, 307 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.11 13:58:01 +0530 2 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Chunmun Sharma filed a complaint on 13.05.2024 that one present applicant called his brother Shantu Sharma to reach at Bangali Chowk near Tripati Petrol Pump and when he reached near Tripati Petrol Pump, they found that present applicant and other accused persons were also present and thereafter, the accused persons started abusing the victims as they filed earlier complaint against them. Thereafter, the present applicant and other co-accused persons have assaulted the victims with knife and hammer and other co-accused persons assaulted with hand and fist due to which, the victims have sustained injuries in different parts of body. Hence, FIR has been registered. 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 submitted that this is the second bail application, the first bail application has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2024 passed in MCRC No. 6194/2024, it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant is that new ground the applicant is in jail since 14.05.2024 and stated that till date charges have been framed against the applicant on 09.09.2024 but the three co-accused have been arrested by the Police and on account of them the case is held up for framing of charge, hence the trial will take time to conclude, further the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 14.05.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays 3 for grant of bail. 4 On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 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 this is the second bail application, the first bail application has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2024 passed in MCRC No. 6194/2024, and the new ground is that the applicant is in jail since 14.05.2024 and till date charges have been framed against the applicant on 09.09.2024 but the three co-accused have been arrested by the Police and on account of them the case is held up for framing of charge, hence the trial will take time to conclude, further the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 14.05.2024, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7 Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Arvind Sharma, involved in Crime No. 324/2024, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 323, 307 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of 4 Arms Act, be released on bail on his 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 his 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 his, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya 5 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 his in accordance with law. 8 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 Preeti