1 2025:CGHC:188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9056 of 2024 1 - Chanesh Basod S/o Ghasiya Basod Aged About 32 Years R/o Inchpara, P.S. - Kapu, Tahsil - Dharmajaigarh, District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Karan Yadav S/o Prabodh Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Inchpara, P.S. - Kapu, Tahsil - Dharmajaigarh, District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ramnarayan Rathiya S/o Shyam Sunder Rathiya Aged About 25 Years R/o Inchpara, P.S. - Kapu, Tahsil - Dharmajaigarh, District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Thana, In-Charge, P.S. - Kapu, District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.01.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 111/2024, registered at Police Station – Kapu, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 105, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 15.09.2024 the complainant namely Rajendra Prasad Rathiya has lodged complaint that on 14.09.2024 electric wires were laid from the electric pole for the purpose to trap the Pigs and the deceased namely Siyaram Rathiya died due to sticking to the electric wires, for the above reason complainant has lodged the F.I.R. against the applicants. Hence, this application. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It has been further submitted that the bail application of the co-accused person has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024, passed in MCRC No. 8881/2024. The applicants are in jail since 16.09.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. It has further submitted that on 15.09.2024 the complainant namely Rajendra Prasad Rathiya has lodged complaint that on 14.09.2024 electric wires were laid from the electric pole for the purpose to trap the Pigs and the deceased namely Siyaram Rathiya died due to sticking to the electric wires, for the above reason complainant has lodged the F.I.R. against the applicants. Therefore, the applicants is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity 3 of allegation leveled against the applicant and period of detention in jail, further the fact that that the bail application of the co-accused person has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024, passed in MCRC No. 8881/2024 and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, the applicants are in jail since 16.09.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicants - Chanesh Basod, Karan Yadav, and Ramnarayan Rathiya involved in Crime No. 111/2024, registered at Police Station – Kapu, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 105, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 135 of the Electricity 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 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, 4 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. 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 Rajshekhar