1 2025:CGHC:2955 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6582 of 2024 1 - Gopal Gupta S/o Late Ramesh Gupta Aged About 27 Years R/o Nayapara Cashew Rice Mill Chowk Ward No. 02, Durg, Police Station And District Durg (C.G.) --- Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station - Durg, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) MCRC No. 7964 of 2024 1 - Chandrakant Alias Chotu Sahu S/o Late Yogendranath Sahu, Aged About 25 Years R/o Near Keju Mil Chowk, Nayapara Rajiv Nagar, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) ---Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, City Kotwali, District-Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Amit Nayak, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 16/01/2025 As both these M.Cr.Cs. arise out of the same crime number, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicants have filed these bail applications under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Naagrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as they are in custody in connection with Crime No. 531/2023 registered at police station City Kotwali Durg, District Durg (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 294,5506,323/34,307 and 302 IPC. 3. As per prosecution case, complaint was lodged by the complainant alleging that on 12.09.2023, in the morning the applicant along with co-accused ( in M.Cr.C. No.7964/2024) and one Chandrakant Sahu came to his house and called his son. Thereafter they took him to the Keju Rice Mill near Sankalp Vidya Mandir, Durg and after abusing him, beat him with stick and hands and threatened to kill. The incident was seen by one Ayush Gupta who informed the complainant that his son had sustained grievous injuries. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime. He further submits that the injuries sustained by the injured were not grievous and dangerous to 3 life. It is submitted that the applicants are in jail since 13.09.2023, the charge sheet has been filed and looking to the conduct of the prosecution it is clear that the trial will take time for its conclusion therefore they may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand counsel for the State opposes the bail applications. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, considered the totality of the facts in particular the nature of allegations against the applicants, I am not inclined to release the them on bail. Accordingly, their applications filed under Section 483 BNSS are rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.01.18 03:11:50 -0500