1 2025:CGHC:25951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 846 of 2025 1 - Jagdish Yadav S/o Ramdhani Yadav Aged About 70 Years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Madhupara, Patora, P S And Tahsil Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Mukesh Yadav S/o Jagdish Yadav Aged About 38 Years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Madhupara, Patora, P S And Tahsil Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Mhojar Yadav S/o Ramdhani Yadav Aged About 65 Years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Madhupara, Patora, P S And Tahsil Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Rajesh Yadav S/o Mhojar Yadav Aged About 40 Years Occupation Agriculturist (Cattle Caring), R/o Village Madhupara, Patora, P S And Tahsil Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Kamlesh Yadav S/o Mhojar Yadav Aged About 35 Years Occupation Conductor, R/o Village Madhupara, Patora, P S And Tahsil Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Sonu Yadav S/o Rajesh Yadav Aged About 18 Years Occupation Student, R/o Village Madhupara, Patora, P S And Tahsil Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Lundra, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer For Objector Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.06.20 15:22:33 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19/06/2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 482 of the BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 86/2025, registered at Police Station Lundra, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 296, 351(3), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 333 & 109(1) of BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that on 19.04.2025 the complainant namely Pihar Sai lodged a report in police station to the effect that they are doing agriculture work on the government land since last two decades and on the date of incident the accused persons came and started doing the agriculture work on the said land and again the accused persons went near to the house of complainant by carrying lathi, danda etc. and assaulted the complainant and his family members as a result of which they sustained injuries. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicants having no previous criminal antecedent. He further submits that there is a counter case lodged by the applicant No.5 bearing Cr. No.87 of 2025 against the complainant party for offence under Section 115(2), 296, 3(5), 351(3) of the BNS on the same date. He also submits that the applicants No. 4, 5 and 6 and their family members also sustained injuries which were caused by the complainant party on head and various other part of body. He lastly submits that the applicants No.1 Jagdish Yadav and applicant No.3 Mhojar Yadan are old aged persons, they are aged about 70 years and 65 years respectively and trial is likely 3 to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel and learned counsel for the Objector opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the instant case, looking to the overt-act applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that the complainant party received injuries on head and other vital parts of the body, which are serious in nature thus, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to grant regular bail to the applicant No. 2-Mukesh Yadav, applicant No.4-Rajesh Yadav, applicant No.5- Kamlesh Yadav and applicant No.6-Sonu Yadav. Accordingly, this bail application of above applicants involved in Crime No. 86/2025, registered at Police Station Lundra, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 296, 351(3), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 333 & 109(1) of BNS, is rejected at this stage. 7. Whereas the fact that the applicants No.1 and 3 are having no previous criminal antecedent and they are aged about 70 years and 65 years respectively and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the applicant No.1 is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant No.1 – Jagdish Yadav and applicant No.2 – Mhojar Yadav involved in Crime No. 86/2025, registered at Police Station Lundra, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 296, 351(3), 115(2), 4 191(2), 191(3), 333 & 109(1) of BNS, 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 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be 5 open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 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 vaishali