1 2025:CGHC:43250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6732 of 2025 • Rajulal Kanwar S/o Suraj Lal Kanwar (Full Name) Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Seoni, P.S. Gatapaar, Tahsil Khairagarh, Distt. Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus • The State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Khairagarh, Distt. Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.08.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.75/2025 registered at Police Station - Khairagarh District Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the applicant and other persons, that they knowingly that Santosh Mandavi is unskilled VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.08.29 10:42:13 +0530 2 labour, had engage him for maintenance of electric poll and during the maintenance, Santosh Mandavi died from electric shock. Hence an offence under aforesaid section was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that anticipatory bail applications of the applicant and other co-accused namely Sandeep Kumar Soni and Satyam Sharma were rejected by this Court in MCRCA No.439 of 2025, MCRCA No.446 of 2025 and MCRCA No.441 of 2025 vide orders dated 28.03.2025 and 01.04.2025 respectively. Co-accused Satyam Sharma has preferred the SLP No.6361 of 2025, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that in the present matter the charge sheet has already been filed and he is in jail since 09.07.2025, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. He further submits that present applicant along with other co-accused after knowing very well that the deceased is not a trained labour, instigated him to climb upon the electricity pole and because of which he died due to the electricity shock. He further submits that co- accused namely Satyam Sharma has earlier preferred anticipatory bail and the same has been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No.441 of 2025 vide order dated 01.04.2025, thereafter he has preferred the SLP No.6361 of 2025, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, allegations levelled against the applicant and the fact that earlier anticipatory bail applications of the applicant along with other co-accused namely Sandeep Kumar Soni and Satyam Sharma were rejected by this Court in MCRCA No.439 of 2025, MCRCA No.446 of 2025 and MCRCA No.441 of 2025 vide orders dated 28.03.2025 and 01.04.2025 respectively. Co-accused Satyam Sharma has preferred the SLP No.6361 of 2025, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Charge-sheet has already been filed and he is in jail since 09.07.2025, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Rajulal Kanwar, involved in Crime No.No.75/2025 registered at Police Station - Khairagarh District Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 34 of IPC, be released on bail on furnishing 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 their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of 4 bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fail 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali