Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38277 (CHH)

SOMNATH SHUKLA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/6067/2025 · 2025-08-03

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:38420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6067 of 2025 Somnath Shukla S/o Dharam Kumar Shukla Aged About 28 Years R/o Ghasidas Nagar, Mangal Near Mangal Market, Jamul, Police Station- Jamul, District- Durg C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through By Collector Through S H O Police Station Balod, District- Balod C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04/08/2025 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 142/2025 registered at Police Station Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 3(5), 311 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a complaint was filed at Police Station Balod in District Balod, Chhattisgarh, alleging that on the evening of March 22, 2025, the complainant was walking near Jaistambh Chowk in Balod when the accused persons, including the applicant, arrived in an auto-rickshaw. They approached the complainant, asked for directions, and requested him to join them in the vehicle. Once he was inside, they took him to a different location, where one of the accused, Mukesh Chandravanshi, threatened him with a knife and stole his purse. This led to the registration of the aforementioned offense against the applicant, and he was subsequently arrested, prompting the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the main allegation of assault is against the co-accused, Mukesh Chandravanshi. The present applicant is allegedly implicated in the case solely on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused, Mukesh Chandravanshi. Notably, the main accused and another co-accused, Y Janki Rao, have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 5131 of 2025, vide order dated July 2, 2025, and MCRC No. 5725 of 2025, vide order dated July 22, 2025. Copies of the bail orders are annexed herewith as Annexure A-4. He also submits that there is no any seizure of weapon of assault has been made from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 24.03.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its 3 conclusion. Therefore, on the ground of parity, present applicant be also enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons, allegedly threatened the complainant with a knife and stole his purse, further there is recovery of Rs.2,500/- from the possession of the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 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, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 24.03.2025, the fact that though the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons, allegedly threatened the complainant with a knife and stole his purse, but two of the co-accused persons, namely, Mukesh Chandravanshi and Y. Janki Rao have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 02.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 in MCRC No.5131 of 2025 and MCRC No.5725 of 2025, respectively, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the aforementioned co-accused persons, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 4 8. Let the Applicant-Somnath Shukla, involved in Crime No. 142/2025 registered at Police Station Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 3(5), 311 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 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 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 5 and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. 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 Akhil