1 2025:CGHC:127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8950 of 2024 1 - Krish Kumar Singh S/o Lt. Sanjay Singh Aged About 18 Years R/o Chhota Ashok Nagar, Ward No. 2, Ambedkar Chowk, Gudhiyari, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajit Kumar Gupta S/o Late Ramesh Gupta Aged About 23 Years R/o Dharsiwa, Ward No. 20, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO. P.S. Gudhiyari, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/01/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 604/2024 registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under 2 Section 109, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, ‘BNS’) (wrongly mentioned as BNSS in the bail rejection order passed by the learned trial Court as well as in the bail application filed by the applicants). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.09.2024 the complainant, namely, Vikas Verma lodged the report before Police Station Gudhiyari Raipur alleging that on 23.09.2024 at about 10.00 o' clock, the accused in collaboration with a minor who violated the law, attempted to kill Pritam by inflicting fatal injuries with a bat and stump, causing severe head injuries, with the intention of taking his life. Considering the entire situation and circumstances of the case, thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that on account of previous animosity, due to wrong intention the complainant lodged the report against the applicants. He also submits that the applicants have no intention to cause injury to the complainant, but due to previous matter at the heat of the moment a quarrel took place between them and complainant received injures, which is simple in nature. The applicants are in jail since 25.09.2024, the applicants have no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the 3 charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicants alongwith other co-accused persons have assaulted the complainant with bat and stump, due to which, the complainant received severe head injuries on his person, therefore, the applicants are 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, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants since 25.09.2024, the fact that though the allegation against the applicants that they alongwith other co-accused persons have assaulted the complainant with bat and stump, due to which, the complainant received severe head injuries on his person, but the injuries sustained by the complainant are found to be simple in nature, further the applicants have no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let the Applicants-Krish Kumar Singh and Ajit Kumar Gupta, involved in Crime No. 604/2024 registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 109, 3(5) of BNS (wrongly mentioned as BNSS in the bail rejection order passed by the learned trial Court as well as in the bail application filed by the applicants), be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following 4 conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil