1 2025:CGHC:44006 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5540 of 2025 1 - Mukund Sonkar S/o Narrotam Sonkar, Aged About 20 Years R/o House No. 78 Sita Para, Gaura Chowk, Village Ghughwa, Post Sankara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Rupesh Sonkar, S/o Yogesh Sonkar, Aged About 23 Years Village Ghughwa, Post Sankara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S. Amleshwar, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Ravi Kumar Kashyap, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.08.2025 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 27/2025 registered at Police Station Amleshwar, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 115(2), 304 & 3(5) of BNS and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.08.29 18:33:55 +0530 2 2. According to the prosecution, on 24.03.2025, the complainant. Kuleshwar Sahu, submitted a written application at P.S. Amleshwar, stating that on 23.02.2025, he was returning to his residence in Devpuri, Raipur, on his motorcycle with his friend Jagdish Bharti after attending a wedding at Kamal Singh Thakur's residence in Jeet village. Around 11:15 p.m., near Jamrava Chowk, three to four unidentified young men stopped their motorcycle, held knives to their throats, and forcibly snatched the complainant's purse and mobile phone. They assaulted the complainant and his friend with fists and kicks. After the assault, the accused took Rs. 500 from the purse, returned the purse, and fled with the mobile phone. On 24.02.2025, the complainant contacted his stolen mobile using a friend's phone, and the accused, promising to return it, summoned him near Bhatagaon Bus Stand. When the complainant arrived, the accused denied returning the mobile and disconnected the call. Subsequently, the accused used Phone-Pe to withdraw Rs. 21,000 from the complainant's mobile account. Based on this information, an offense was registered under sections 115(2), 304, 3(5) of the BNS, as well as sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and the investigation was initiated. 3. It is respectfully submitted that the injuries alleged are not serious in nature and the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about one month from the alleged incident. There are no eyewitnesses to support the allegations, and it appears that the complainant, due to enmity and personal animosity, has colluded with the police to falsely implicate the applicant by making fabricated accusations. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, is the sole breadwinner of his family, and has been in jail since 29.05.2025, whereas the conclusion 3 of the trial will take considerable time. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Durg (C.G.) having strong social roots, and there is no likelihood of absconding, tampering with witnesses, or threatening anyone. In view of the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the applicant deserves to be released on bail, subject to any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that Applicant No.1 has one criminal antecedent, whereas Applicant No.2 has no criminal antecedent. 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, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants, the fact that Applicant No.1 has one criminal antecedent while Applicant No.2 has none, and also considering that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicants have been in jail since 29.05.2025, and further that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 7. 7. Let the Applicants - Mukund Sonkar and Rupesh Sonkar, involved in Crime No. 27/2025 registered at Police Station Amleshwar, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 115(2), 304 & 3(5) of BNS and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on 4 furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each 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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail 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 Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav