1 2025:CGHC:33852 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4778 of 2025 Bharati Kurre W/o Pratipal Kurre Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Jhanki Post Office Thengabhath, Police Station And Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : None appears For Respondent/State : Smt. Subha Shrivastava, PL. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/07/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.131/2025 (wrongly mentioned as Crime No. 133/2025 in the bail rejection order passed by the trial Court as well as in the present bail application) registered at Police Station Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 190, 191(2), ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 191(3), 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Balram Tandon made complaint on 07-06-2025 at Police Station Nawagarh stating therein that 07-06-2025 at about 9.30 AM, when the complainant and other family members were working in his field, at that time the present applicant and other accused persons due to some small issue have assaulted the complainant and other family members from the wooden rod and also abused filthy languages, therefore, crime has been registered against the present applicant and other accused persons as aforementioned. 3. On 16.07.2025, the following order was passed : “Heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he wants to withdraw the instant bail application. List this matter tomorrow i.e. on 17.07.2025 by connecting the applicant through video conferencing in order to ascertain from the applicant as to why, the father of the applicant, who is the deponent in this bail application has moved an application for withdrawal of the bail application and the learned counsel for the applicant is unable to inform this Court the reason behind the withdrawal of present bail application and it also appears from the FIR that the entire family of the applicant is in jail in the present case. List this case tomorrow i.e., on 17.07.2025.” 3 4. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 16/07/2025, the accused/applicant has been produced before this Court through video conferencing from the Central Jail, Durg, who has been identified by Ms. Rashmi Chaudhary, Assistant Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg. 5. On a pointed query being made from the accused/Applicant through the Assistant Jailer, Central Jail, Durg it has been informed by her that some settlement has taken place between the family of the Applicant and the Complainant and it is stated that there are cross reports of the incident, which is registered as case Crime No. 130/2025 in the same police station and some of the family members of the Applicant have been granted bail by the trial Court and so far as the application for withdrawal of the present bail application, which has been moved by the father of the Applicant is concerned, a query has been made from the Assistant Jailer as to when the bail application of the Applicant has been rejected by the trial Court and the present bail application has been filed against the said order and if the said application for withdrawal is allowed, then how the Applicant would be released, then it is stated that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the further proceedings would be taken up for the release of the Applicant. 6. 6. A report has been called through the Registrar General of this Court from concerned trial Court that out of 15 accused persons named in the FIR being Crime No. 133 of 2025, how many have 4 been granted bail and how many are still in jail, it has been informed by the concerned trial Court that the Crime No. 133 of 2025 is with relation to another case which has been registered under Section 137(2) of the BNS against unknown person and the correct crime number registered against the applicant and her family members is Crime No. 131 of 2025 and copies of FIR bearing Crime Nos. 133 of 2025 and 131 of 2025 have been sent by the concerned trial Court to this Court. The same be taken on record. It has been further informed that out of 15 accused persons, 12 have been arrested and out of which 11 co-accused persons, namely, Pratipal, Birendra, Ramesh, Bhimrao, Bhagwat, Vishnu, Prithviraj, Chitrekha, Raniya, Rupkali @ Rupali and Tanuja have already been granted bail by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bemerata and only the present applicant, namely, Bharati Kurre is still in jail, whose bail application has been rejected by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara and 03 co-accused namely, Ranjit Kurre, Sagar Kurre and Samir Kurre are absconding. 7. From perusal of the record and aforesaid copies of FIRs, it transpires that in the bail rejection order passed by the trial Court as well as in the present bail application, crime number has wrongly been mentioned as Crime No. 133 of 2025, whereas the correct crime number is Crime No. 131 of 2025 in which the applicant is one of the accused. 8. The order rejecting bail application passed by the learned trial 5 Court is dated 10.06.2025, which contains incorrect crime number. Recently, on 09.07.2025, a learned Division Bench of this Court in CRMP No. 1975/2025 has issued directions to the all trial Courts that while passing the orders on the bail applications filed by the accused, it shall make an attempt to ensure that all the particulars with regard to the said case as mentioned in the FIR (final report/ charge-sheet in case the investigation is completed), properly finds place in their orders also, as any trivial mistake may lead to unnecessary delay in release of the accused, who are languishing in jail. 9. In view of the above, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to call for an explanation from the concerned Presiding Officer though the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bemetara as to why incorrect particular of crime number has been mentioned in the bail rejection order, which has created further complications while passing the order by this Court and why appropriate action may not be taken against him. The Presiding Officer concerned shall submit his response within a period of 07 days from the date of receipt of the show-cause notice. 10. The response submitted by the concerned Presiding Officer shall be placed by the Registrar General for perusal, in Chamber. 11. Learned State Counsel has pointed out that charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. 12. I have perused the case diary and materials placed along with bail application. 6 13. Considering the fact that the Applicant is in jail and out of 15 accused persons, 12 have been arrested and out of which 11 have already been granted bail by the trial Court and only the present applicant is still in jail and further considering the fact that there are cross reports of the incident from both the parties and the accused persons, who were wanted in the cross reports lodged from the side of the Applicant being Crime No.130 of 2025, have already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court, I deem it appropriate to release the present Applicant on bail. 14. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Bharati Kurre, involved in Crime No.131/2025 (wrongly mentioned as Crime No. 133/2025) registered at Police Station Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on her 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial 7 court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, 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 open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 15. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bemetara for necessary information and compliance within 48 hours. 16. In view of above, I.A. No. 01 of 2025, application for withdrawal of the bail application stands rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri/Chandra