1 2025:CGHC:462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8800 of 2024 Rakesh Kujur S/o. Sanjay Kujur Aged About 21 Years R/o. Deendayal Colony, Police Station Kotwali, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - City Kotwali, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/01/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 617/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(2) of BNS and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.10.2024 at about 9.30 p.m. the complainant went to his sister's house namely Sunita Lakra situated at Urdana along with his friend Badal Sarthi, thereafter both were returning back to his house on the way near Deendayal colony near Masjid, some persons were playing cards where the 2 applicant along with her mother met with the complainant and applicant abuses the complainant and also assaulted him by means of sharp objet due to previous enmity between them, on account of which the complainant received injuries on left side of head, back and right shoulder. Thereafter, complainant/victim lodged the report before the concerned Police Station against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is said to have assaulted the injured, who sustained injuries on his head and shoulder. Though the injuries stated to be grievous in nature but there is no query report to ascertain the fact whether the injuries were found to be dangerous to life and the applicant is in jail since 16.10.2024 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court 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 applicant is said to have assaulted the injured, who sustained injuries on his head and shoulder. He further submits that though the injuries stated to be grievous in nature but there is no query report to ascertain the fact whether the injuries were found to be dangerous to life and also the fact that the applicant has one criminal antecedent under the IPC of the year 2022. As such, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 3 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 16.10.2024 and the fact that the applicant is said to have assaulted the injured, who sustained injuries on his head and shoulder, though the injuries stated to be grievous in nature but there is no query report to ascertain the fact whether the injuries were found to be dangerous to life and moreover the applicant has only one previous criminal antecedent under the IPC of the year 2022 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. 7. Let the Applicant-Rakesh Kujur, involved in Crime No. 617/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(2) of BNS 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial 4 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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal