1 2025:CGHC:31408 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5250 of 2025 1 - Mukesh Kumar Lahare S/o Itwari Lahare Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Babai, P.O. Rakse P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Venkat Markam S/o Pancham Singh Markam Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Koylari, P.O. Daldali, P.S. Taregaon Jangal, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bodala, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Shri Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, PL. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08/07/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.07.09 18:35:25 +0530 2 grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.61/2025 registered at Police Station Bodala, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 118(2), 351(3), 109, 3(5) BNS and sections 25, 27 Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the injured Laldas Anant works as a security guard in the government liquor shop, Bodla. He had taken Rs. 90,000 from the accused on the pretext that he would get the accused a job as a salesman in the government liquor shop. When he did not get the job, on asking for the money back, he returned Rs. 80,000 and started procrastinating in returning the remaining Rs. 10,000. On the date of the incident, after the shop was closed, both the accused reached the shop and started asking for their money back. Then he started quarreling with them. Since Venkat Markam wears an iron bracelet on his hand, during the scuffle, he got hurt on his cheek, on which a written FIR was lodged against unknown persons on the written complaint of his mother, Mrs. Geeta Anant. Police are investigating crime number 61/2025 Offence under sections 296, 118(2), 351(3), 109, 3(5) BNS and sections 25, 27 Arms Act. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that between the applicants and the injured there was some quarrel on account of which it is stated that the applicant had assaulted the injured with knife who suffered incised wound on his cheek, fore arm and wrist and the injuries which were found to be though 3 grievous in nature but no internal damage has been caused. He would submit that the applicants are in jail since 02/05/2025, charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. She would submit that charge sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent court. She would submit that the injuries suffered by the injured were though found to be grievous in nature but no internal damage has been caused. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that injuries suffered by the injured were though found to be grievous in nature but no internal damage has been caused, considering the period of detention of the applicants since 02/05/2025, charge sheet has been filed and trial is likely to some time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the applicants-Mukesh Kumar Lahare and Venkat Markam, involved in Crime No.61/2025 registered at Police Station Bodala, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 118(2), 351(3), 109, 3(5) BNS and sections 25, 27 4 Arms Act., be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 5 Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE gouri