1 2025:CGHC:24129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4503 of 2025 1 - Lalit Gaure S/o Late Balakdas Gaure Aged About 24 Years R/o Krishna Nagar, Gali No. 03, Police Station- Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Gudhiyari, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Non- applicant/State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Justice Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 16.06.2025 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.483/2024 registered at Police 2 Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 127(2), 109, 311, 111, 190, 191(2) of BNS. 2. The prosecution's story is such that on 16.07.2024, the complainant inuured Shankar Singh Thakur lodged the written report in the Police Station to the effect that on the date of incident when he reached near the Budh Chowk, Ram Nagar, Police Station, Gudhiyari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh the present accused along with other co-accused stopped him and locked the house of Prince Bagade with the intention to kill him, thereafter assaulted him by base ball, bat and a stick brutally. Further it was alleged that the present accused along with other co-accused took him in the vehicle forcefully in the mandir- Hasaoud and thrown there out of the vehicle and again assaulted the complainant by hand, fist as well as with knife, thereafter the impression by the accused persons that the complainant has died, left him there. After the incident the complainant admitted to the hospital. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the name of the 3 applicant has not been reflected in the FIR, moreover the victim has not identified the present applicant . The only allegation that pertains to the present applicant is such that he was making the video of the incident at that time. He further submitted that there has been no recovery made from the present applicant. There is no seizure and the applicant is arrested only on the basis of the memorandum. He further submits that no prima facie case is established by the prosecution against the present applicant involving him in the alleged offence as well as not shown the mensrea of the applicant. It is respectfully submitted that the co- accused has been granted bail by the learned trial court. The trial would take a much considerable time to conclude, hence he prays that the present applicant be enlarged on bail by this court, in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case and the trial is going on. He submitted that although nothing has been seized from the present applicant but assaulting bat and base ball has been seized from other co-accused. 4 Moreover the applicant was making video at the time of incident through which he has been identified and arrested, therefore, it cannot be said that the prima facie case is not made out in the present case with regard to the present applicant. The car which was looted by the accused have been sold and by that money they ran away. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that it is clear that there is no recovery made from the present applicant but the recovery was made from the other co-accused. Looking to the involvement of the present applicant, it is clear that at the time of incident the applicant was making the video through which he was recognized and arrested. Moreover out of the 33 witnesses five have been examined in the trial court. Therefore, looking to the seriousness of the crime in question and the involvement of the present applicant, it cannot be said that a prima facie case is not made out against him. Hence, this court is not inclined to allow the bail application of the applicant and enlarge him on bail. 5 7. Accordingly, the present MCRC stands rejected. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza