1 2025:CGHC:41273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6439 of 2025 Jageshwar Manikpuri S/o Motidas Aged About 19 Years R/o Bhatgaon, Police Station Mujgahan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mujgahan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shirvastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 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. 01/2025 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District : Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2) and 331(6), of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.01.2025, the complainant, Shiv Kumar Kosle, lodged a report at Police Station Mujgahan, alleging that on 30.12.2024 at about 8:00 PM, the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 accused persons, namely Tarun Ratre, Manish Ratre, and their companions, were consuming liquor and speaking loudly near the complainant’s house. When the complainant objected, the accused persons abused and assaulted him. The complainant then called Dial 112, upon which the police personnel arrived and pacified the matter. Thereafter, the complainant went inside his house. After some time, the said accused persons again came near the complainant’s house, abused him, and knocked on the door. When the complainant opened the door, the accused persons forcibly entered his house, assaulted him, and took him away in a car, roaming around to various places. Later, they dropped the complainant at a secluded location. The complainant somehow managed to reach his sister’s house during the night, and on the following morning, he returned to his own house and lodged the present report. On the basis of the said report, offences were registered against the accused persons, namely Tarun Ratre, Manish Ratre, and two others. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the name of applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of memorandum of co- accused. He further submits that the prosecution has not conducted any TIP and no recovery was made from the possession of the applicant. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 01.04.2025, the applicant has one criminal antecedent under the 3 NDPS Act, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant, along with the co-accused persons, were consuming liquor and speaking loudly near the complainant’s house and when the complainant objected, the accused persons abused and assaulted him. Thereafter, the complainant went inside his house, after some time, the said accused persons again came near the complainant’s house, abused him, and knocked on the door and when the complainant opened the door, the accused persons forcibly entered his house, assaulted him, and took him away in a car, roaming around to various places, later, they dropped the complainant at a secluded location, therefore, the applicant 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 01.04.2025, the fact that the applicant along with co-accused persons assaulted the injured with fists and hands, who has sustained injuries, which is non vital part of the body, the injured person was received injuries simple in nature nor any in a grievous 4 nature, further the applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act which is pending 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. 7. Let the Applicant- Jageshwar Manikpuri, involved in Crime No. 01/2025 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District : Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2) and 331(6), of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on their 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 5 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan