1 2025:CGHC:39490 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6227 of 2025 Suraj Gupta S/o Manikchand Gupta Aged About 27 Years R/o Adarsh Para, Supela, Police Station Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (As Per Charge Sheet) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.08.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 495/2025, registered at Police Station- Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 61(2) and 111(4) of the BNS and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 30.04.2025 at about 10:40, the applicant along with other co-accused persons have cause the injuries to one Rohit Tiwari with an axe to kill him, resultantly the injured sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious, therefore, crime has been registered and charge- sheet has been filed and the presnet applicant has been arrested. Hence this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the case, having neither committed nor participated in any act amounting to the offences mentioned. The evidence collected by the prosecution is also not prima facie sufficient to hold the applicant guilty. Notably, the applicant is merely an eyewitness as per the FIR and has no role in the crime and further, co-accused persons namely- Dinesh @ Mucchu, Rohit Tiwari and Raja Balli are said to have assaulted the injured, who has sustained grievous injuries on his person and admittedly, the applicant has not caused any injuries to the injured. So far as criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent registered against him. He lastly submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.07.2025, though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, he submits that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute that the fact that 3 charge-sheet has already been filed. She further submits that the applicant along with other co-accused persons have assaulted the injuries, due to which, the injured has sustained grievous injuries on his person, as such, looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that notably, the applicant is merely an eyewitness as per the FIR and has no role in the crime and further, co-accused persons namely- Dinesh @ Mucchu, Rohit Tiwari and Raja Balli are said to have assaulted the injured, who has sustained grievous injuries on his person and admittedly, the applicant has not caused any injuries to the injured and the case of the applicant is distinguishable to that of the co-accused persons and further, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent registered against him, charge-sheet has already been filed and he is languishing in jail since 01.05.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 6. Let applicant, Suraj Gupta, involved in Crime No. 495/2025, registered at Police Station- Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 61(2) and 111(4) of the BNS and Section 25 and 27 of the 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:- 4 (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 them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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. 5 7. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil