1 2025:CGHC:4706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 673 of 2025 Ashwani Verma @ Anshu S/o Mathura Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Dhaba Road, Chikhali Chowki P.S.- City Kotwali, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Sho, Ps - Supela Distt. - Durg (C.G.). ... Non-applicant For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pranav Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 852/2024 registered at Police Station – Supela, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109 and 112 of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05/08/2024, a Head Constable at Supela Police Station, received information via telephone that complainant Umesh Kumar Verma was attacked by unknown individuals near Monu Vastralaya, Ganesh Market, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.28 10:44:20 +0530 2 Supela. Umesh sustained serious injuries and was admitted to Shankara Hospital, Junwani, for treatment. Upon reaching the scene, based on the victim's report, a case was registered under Section 109 BNS against unknown persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no evidence against the present applicant that proves his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The applicant is involved in several cases with his wife, including domestic violence, maintenance and a case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (which deals with divorce). The complainant in the present case is the wife's brother, who is the applicant's brother-in-law. The complaint has been filed only due to the applicant living separately from his wife along with suspicions and family disputes, based on fabricated reasons. He further submits that the present applicant's name was not mentioned in the FIR and the FIR was lodged against 3 unknown persons, then the prosecution, very cleverly falsely implicated 4 persons, including present applicant only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused as accused in the instant case. He later submits that the doctor who inspected the complainant on 05.08.2024 clearly mentioned in the inspection report that the injuries were found to be simple in nature. It is also important to note that the complainant was treated in the OPD for only one day and the X-ray report attached with the charge-sheet showed no bone injury and the applicant is in jail since 15.09.2024, 3 thus the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court moreover, the fact that the applicant along with co-accused have assaulted the complainant on account of which he received several injuries however, the injuries were found to be simple in nature. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the bail application of the applicant. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, that the applicant along with co-accused have assaulted the complainant, on account of which he received several injuries however, the injuries were found to be simple in nature and the present applicant has made accused only on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused however, he has not named in the FIR and it is a case of matrimonial dispute going on between the parties, he is languishing in jail since 15.09.2024, charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence I am inclined to allow this bail application. 7. 7. Let applicant, Ashwani Verma @ Anshu, involved in Crime No. 852/2024 registered at Police Station – Supela, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109 and 112 of BNS., be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 4 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 them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 5 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. In the meanwhile, the defect pointed out by the Registry is over ruled. 9. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal