1 2025:CGHC:48611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7615 of 2025 Shankar Nayak S/o Late Shri Budhram Nayak Aged About 42 Years R/o. Village - Udiya Colony, Shankarpur, Ward No. 07, Out Post - Chikhali, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Out Post Chikhali, Police Station - Kotwali Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/09/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 371/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 119(1), 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 17.07.2025 at about 10:30 a.m., the complainant went to Motipur cloth press shop on his bicycle from his house situated at village Bajrangpur Nayagaon to get his KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 clothes pressed. At about 11:00 a.m., while returning home from Motipur, near Motipur pond, accused persons namely Shankar Nayak and Bunty Nayak of village Shankarpur along with two other co-accused intercepted him. Shankar Nayak and Bunty Nayak caught hold of his bicycle and demanded money from him for consuming liquor. When the applicant stated that he had no money, all four accused persons assaulted and abused him and also threatened to kill him. Somehow, the complainant managed to escape, saved his life, and went home, where he narrated the incident to his wife. Due to the assault, he sustained injuries on his chest and back. As he was terrified, he initially did not lodge the report. However, on the persuasion of his wife, on 19.07.2025, he went along with her to Police Outpost Chikhali, Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, and lodged the report. During the course of investigation, the complainant/injured was medically examined and the doctor opined that visible injuries were present on his body. On the basis of the said report, the crime scene was inspected, a site map was prepared, and statements of the complainant/injured and other witnesses were recorded. The accused persons were thereafter arrested, and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case, though he has not committed any act as alleged. Except Section 119(1) BNS, all other offences are bailable in nature, and even Section 119(1) BNS does not prescribe life imprisonment or death 3 penalty. The incident is said to have occurred on 17.07.2025, yet the FIR was lodged after two days without any satisfactory explanation, which casts doubt on the prosecution story and indicates possibility of false implication. The complainant himself has filed a no-objection for grant of bail, showing that he has no grievance against the applicant. Further, the medical report reveals that no external visible injury was found on the complainant, which falsifies the allegation of assault and weakens the prosecution version. One of the co- accused, namely Lukky Tandekar, has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and the role attributed to the applicant is not greater than that of the said co-accused, hence he also deserves bail on the ground of parity. The learned trial Court has rejected bail only on the ground of previous antecedents, however, the alleged antecedents are neither serious nor connected with the present case and all have already been disposed of without any conviction. Therefore, considering the nature of allegations, delay in lodging FIR, absence of injuries, no-objection by the complainant, and parity with co-accused, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent/State, opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant, along with the co-accused, is alleged to have intercepted the complainant/injured and demanded money for the purpose of consuming liquor. When the demand was refused, they allegedly assaulted the injured with hands and fists, causing injuries. However, as per the medical report, the injuries sustained are simple in nature. It is further submitted that the applicant has one criminal antecedent 4 from the year 2023. In view of the above, the applicant is not entitled to be released on 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 allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the investigation has already been completed and charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court further, the injuries sustained by the injured were found to be simple in nature and the applicant is in jail since 20.07.2025 and the applicant has only one criminal antecedent of the year 2023 and further considering the fact that the co-accused namely Lukky Tandekar has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court thus, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant -Shankar Nayak, involved in Crime No. 371/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 119(1), 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS, 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. 5 (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 and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal