1 2025:CGHC:52343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8466 of 2025 Mukesh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Alakhram Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Mendarka, P.S. Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Manish Chandrakar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27/10/2025 1. This is the 7rst bail application 7led 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. 212/2025 registered at Police Station- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), for the o;ence punishable under Sections 309(3) and 3(5) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that it is revealed that on 22.08.2025, at around 10:50 a.m., the complainant Abhiman Tiwari KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 was taken by the accused Mihul Chandraakar, along with Nairo (Churaman Diwan), Sonu Chandraakar (Dushyant), and another person, from Sandha Chowk, Kurud, in his car, on the pretext that Mihul wanted to talk to him. They took the complainant to Shri Ram Town, Charra Road, Kurud, where they told him that his younger brother Tiwari had gotten them caught in a “chittha” case. Thereafter, all the accused persons, acting in concert, abused him in 7lthy language, threatened to kill him, and assaulted him with 7sts and blows. They also snatched ₹15,000/- from his pocket and threatened him not to come to Kurud again. Based on his written complaint, aforesaid o;ences were registered. In his statement, the complainant further revealed the name of the fourth accused as Mukesh Chandraakar, which he came to know after the FIR was lodged. During investigation, the involvement of the accused persons — Mihul alias Mehul alias Anank Chandraakar, Churaman alias Nairo Diwan, Dushyant alias Sonu Chandraakar, and Mukesh Kumar Chandraakar, was established. They were taken into custody, and their memorandum statements were recorded, on the basis of which the looted amount was recovered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has no connection with the alleged crime whatsoever. The ingredients of the aforementioned o;ences is missing in the instant crime number and further the ingredients of the o;ences punishable under Section 309(3) & 3(5) of B.N.S. is missing in the instant case as there is no involvement of the present applicant. The complainant and present applicant are friends but 3 due to some misunderstanding dispute arose and the complainant has lodged the instant crime. He further submtis that from bare perusal of the MLC shows that there is simple injury in the body part of the complainant. The complainant has already compromised with the applicant and he has no objection if this Court will grant bail and the applicant is in jail since 12.09.2025 and further considering the fact that the co-accused persons namely Churaman @ Nairo Deewan, Anak @ Mehul @ Mithul Chandrakar have been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8258/2025, vide order dated 15.10.2025 and co-accused namely Dushyant @ Sonu Chandrakar has also been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8436/2025, vide order dated 17.10.2025 and trial may take some long time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits the fact the the applicant has 10 criminal antecedents out of them two cases are still pending which have been explained in the bail application of para No. 4(A) as such, he is a habitual o;ender. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. Learned counsel for the objector submits that he has no objection if this Court is pleased to grant bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 4 12.09.2025 and further the fact that the co-accused persons namely Churaman @ Nairo Deewan, Anak @ Mehul @ Mithul Chandrakar have been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8258/2025, vide order dated 15.10.2025 and co-accused namely Dushyant @ Sonu Chandrakar has also been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8436/2025, vide order dated 17.10.2025 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court further the applicant has 10 criminal antecedents out of them two cases are still pending which have been clearly explained in the bail application of para No.4(A) thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Let the applicant – Mukesh Kumar Chandrakar, involved in Crime No. 212/2025 registered at Police Station- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), for the o;ence punishable under Sections 309(3) and 3(5) of BNS, 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 7le an undertaking to the e;ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 7xed 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 7xed, either personally or through 5 his counsel. In case of his absence, without suGcient 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 7xed 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 7xed 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 suGcient 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. 9. OGce is directed to send a certi7ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal