1 2025:CGHC:35467 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5734 of 2025 Rohan Sahu S/o Leela Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Katiyapara, Udai Chowk, Thana City Kotwali, District C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, City Kotwali, District - Bilaspur C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07 .202 5 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 281/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 333, 351(2), 191(2) and 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant, namely, Ashok PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.24 11:47:19 +0530 2 Gupta has lodged written report stating that the disputed started regarding keeping of motorcycle, thereafter accused Mithlesh Singh along with his friend entered the house of complainant and assaulted him and his son with the help of stick due to which they received injury, thereafter police has registered the FIR against the accused person, on the basis of memorandum of co-accused persons the present applicant has been implicated in this case. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that present applicant is not named in the FIR, whereas the co-accused persons, who were named in the FIR, namely, Shubham @ Sonu Soni, Kawyanshu Vinodia and Himanshu @ Montu Yadav have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.07.2025, 10.07.2025 and 16.07.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 5234/2025, 5379/2025 and 5569/2025 respectively. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 24.05.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits the charge-sheet has been filed in this case but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured with hands, fists, and a club alongwith other co-accused persons, as a result, the injured sustained injuries on his person, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 3 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that co-accused persons, who were named in the FIR, namely, Shubham @ Sonu Soni, Kawyanshu Vinodia and Himanshu @ Montu Yadav whose name are lodged in FIR have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.07.2025, 10.07.2025 and 16.07.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 5234/2025, 5379/2025 and 5569/2025 respectively, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 24.05.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Rohan Sahu, involved in Crime No. 281/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 333, 351(2), 191(2) and 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 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 4 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 open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him 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 forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti