1 2025:CGHC:6520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8701 of 2024 Dhanikesh Kumar S/o Shri Rajesh Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o Nonaur Bhojpur Bihar, Presently Residing At Patharripara, Indira Chowk Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Civil Line Rampur Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second 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.387/2024, registered at Police Station Civil Line Rampur Korba, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307, 120B and 34 of the IPC and MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.02.05 16:58:25 +0530 2 Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the place of incident to the effect that the complainant with Fazal Ali and Farukh Ali was going to meet on Suraj Haththel and Vikas Babu at Gadkaleva around 10:30 pm and saw Suraj Haththel therein, the moment when they started talking to him, all of sudden some persons came who were hiding behind the bushes. The accused person started assaulting the victims stating that a year back they have lost life of one relative of the accused due to the victims. The accused person have assaulted the victims with several weapons. The accused person after assaulting for while thought that the victims are dead as they were lying on the ground, thereafter, they left them there itself and flee away from the site of incident. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 on merits. He further submits that the applicant has preferred this second bail application on the ground that the co- accused, namely, Rahul Sharma whose bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2024 in MCRC No. 6593 of 2024, preferred an SLP No. 17100/2024, which was allowed by the learned Apex Court vide order dated 03.02.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant later submits that the applicant is in jail since 30.06.2024 and the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application of the applicant and also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but could not dispute the fact that SLP filed by the co-accused, namely, Rahul Sharma has already been allowed by the learned Apex Court and further the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the co-accused, namely, Rahul Sharma whose bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2024 in MCRC No. 6593 of 2024, preferred an SLP No. 17100/2024, which was allowed by the learned Apex Court vide order dated 03.02.2025 and further the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused and he is languishing in jail since 30.06.2024, hence the bail application of the applicant stands allowed. 6. Let applicant, Dhanikesh Kumar, involved in Crime No.387/2024, registered at Police Station Civil Line Rampur, District- Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307, 120B and 34 of the IPC 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:- (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. 4 (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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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. 7. OfÏce 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 Manpreet