1 2025:CGHC:52349 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8457 of 2025 Ravi Tondey S/o Sushil Tondey Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Dunda, Police Station, Mujgahan, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - S H O Police Station Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.10.2025 1. This is the Second bail application 6led 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. 318/2024 registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the o;ence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 2661 of 2025 was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2025. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the complainant lodged a report stating that on 22.04.2024, a wedding ceremony of his school friend Jitu ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.28 11:42:54 +0530 2 Dhangar was taking place at Telibandha, for which he and the injured persons had already planned to attend. After attending the wedding procession, the complainant was riding his motorcycle towards Boriyakhurd to pick up Shubham Chandrakar from Sangam Marriage Hall at around 10:30 PM, when he saw two boys abusing Shubham Chandrakar and his neighbour Sameer Sahu, and threatening to kill them, saying, “I will kill you both today.” Both boys were holding sharp knives. One of them stabbed Sameer Sahu in the back, while the other stabbed Shubham Chandrakar on his right arm and on the left side of his abdomen with the intention to kill him. As a result, Sameer sustained bleeding injuries on his back, and Shubham’s intestines protruded due to a deep wound, causing profuse bleeding. When the complainant tried to intervene, the boy who had stabbed Shubham said, “You have come to save them; I will not spare you,” and attacked the complainant with a knife, injuring him on the back of his left hand and also hitting him with a club. Thereafter, one of the assailants ran away on foot, while the other Eed in an e-rickshaw. Based on the above-stated allegations, the police of Police Station Tikrapara registered the report and arrested the accused persons, including the present applicant, who was arrested on 28.05.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application 6led on behalf of the applicant. The 6rst bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 in MCRC No. 2661 of 2025 on merits. He submits that the incident was neither pre-planned nor premeditated by the accused persons, rather, it occurred suddenly following a heated argument and physical altercation initiated by the injured, Shubham. He further submits that from the statements of the ten prosecution witnesses, it is evident that there was no prior enmity 3 between the deceased and the present applicant. Therefore, the continued detention of the applicant cannot be justi6ed. Even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value and considered along with the available legal materials, there is no justi6cation for the further detention of the applicant, who has already undergone more than one year and three months of pre-trial custody, and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. Learned counsel also submits that the prosecution agency has failed to collect and produce the medical documents relating to the injuries sustained by the applicant, which clearly show that he su;ered a grievous head injury during the same incident and remained hospitalized for about a month at Venkatesh Superspeciality Hospital, Raipur. He further submits that the family members of the applicant had lodged a written complaint with the police and also 6led an application before the Learned JMFC, Raipur, under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) against the complainant. It is further submitted that the applicant had to undergo surgery for the replacement of the injured portion of his skull bone, and his current medical condition remains poor. As per the medical reports, the applicant frequently experiences sudden jolts or jerks, which are aftere;ects of the cranial surgery. Therefore, the applicant requires proper and continuous medical care. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant has three criminal antecedents under the IPC, which are pending trial. He further submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 28.05.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application 6led on behalf of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been 6led before the competent Court in the present case. He 4 further submits that the applicant assaulted the injured persons with a knife, causing them grievous injuries, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on regular bail in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the allegation against the applicant is that he, along with co- accused Shubham Giri, assaulted the injured persons, namely Sameer Sahu and Shubham Chandrakar, causing them grievous injuries, it transpires that although the 6rst bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits, the applicant has preferred the present second bail application on the ground that, out of 25 prosecution witnesses, 10 witnesses, including one of the injured persons, Sameer Sahu, have been examined and have turned hostile. It is further transpired that the applicant has been under medical treatment and was hospitalized for about a month due to a head injury. The applicant had to undergo surgery for the replacement of the injured portion of his skull bone, and his current medical condition remains poor. As per the medical reports, the applicant frequently experiences sudden jolts or jerks, which are aftere;ects of the cranial surgery. It also transpires that the applicant was sent for medical treatment from Central Jail, Raipur, to DKS Superspeciality Hospital, Raipur, by the jail authorities considering his medical condition. Furthermore, the applicant has been languishing in jail since 28.05.2025, and as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. The Second Bail Application of the Applicant – Ravi Tondey, involved in Crime No. 318/2024 registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, District – 5 Raipur (C.G.), for the o;ence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 6le an undertaking to the e;ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 6xed 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 6xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suKcient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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 6xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against his, 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 6xed 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 6 suKcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against his in accordance with law. 9. OKce is directed to send a certi6ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek