1 2025:CGHC:6881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8481 of 2024 Tukesh @ Takesh @ Siddhu Uike S/o Shri Punit Ram Uike Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Jalso, Ward No. 7 Bich Para, Police Station Tilda, Dist - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer (SHO) Police Station Dharsiwa, Dist - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.02.2025 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. 72/2024 registered at Police Station – Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 394, 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. According to the prosecution's story, on 08.12.2024, at approximately 10:50 pm, injuries were inflicted upon Parmeshwar ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.07 18:08:44 +0530 2 Verma by assaulting him on the right thigh with a knife, and other injured persons were assaulted with hands and fists. The assailants also robbed them of approximately four mobile phones and Rs. 3,500/- in cash. On 09.08.2024, an FIR was lodged against Satish Uike and others, but the present applicant's name was not mentioned in the FIR. The applicant was arrested 25 days later, on March 15, 2024, allegedly to make the offense appear more serious. The bail application, which was previously rejected, was filed in a case initially registered under Sections 341, 394, and 395 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the present applicant was made arrested after 25 days of the incident and also he was not the part of the FIR. He further submits that the identification proceedings of the accused were not conducted with the arrested person. Apparently, only to strengthen the case, the applicants' mobile phones were deposited at the police station and later shown as looted and seized from the applicants/accused. Furthermore, the knife allegedly used in the crime was also not seized from the applicants/accused. He also submits that the present applicant is in jail since 15.03.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application of the applicant and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He 3 further submits that the present applicant has 06 criminal antecedents under the IPC and Arms Act, shows that the applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, he 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 that though the the time was granted to criminal antecedents of the applicant, the deponent of the present bail application is unable to get the same and the query being made from the learned State counsel he revealed that the said criminal antecedents of the applicant pertains to the year 2019 to 2023. Moreover, the fact that in the present bail application charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 15.03.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Tukesh @ Takesh @ Siddhu Uike, involved in Crime No. 72/2024 registered at Police Station – Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 394, 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on his 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 4 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 sufÏcient 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 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. 5 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek