1 2025:CGHC:50857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7700 of 2025 Sheikh Nadeem S/o Shekh Nadir Aged About 33 Years R/o Vidhan Sabha Road, Mowa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 13.10.2025 1. Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 659/2023 registered at Police Station – Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 460, 294, 323, 506, 427, 147, 148, 149, 396, 120B and ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.10.13 17:24:22 +0530 2 302 of Indian Penal Code. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 15.10.2023 at about 5:30 AM, about 08-10 persons entered into the house of deceased, assaulted him and his wife and ran away. In the incident due to assault of accused persons, Chandrashekhar Giri Goswami succumbed to injuries and his wife Archana Giri Goswami suffered injuries. Incident was reported to concerned police station upon which Hemendra Giri Goswami and Hem Giri Goswami were arrested. Based upon their memorandum applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime, he has not committed offence as alleged. He further submits that except memorandum statement of two named accused i.e. Hemendra Giri Goswami and Hem Giri Goswami there is no connecting evidence available on record. He also contended that during course of investigation police has shown seizure of Rs.25,000/- from the possession of the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 16.10.2023. Witnesses to memorandum of seizure and memorandum statement have been examined before trial Court by name Bhanupratap Dhimar (PW-11) and Rekhram Dhruv (PW-14) and they have not supported the case of prosecution. He lastly submits that co-accused Nuruddin has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 06.10.2025 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 7822 of 2025 and the case of present applicant is also on similar footing. Hence he may also be enlarged on bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for applicant and would submit that wife of deceased Archna Giri Goswami who lodged report has specifically named Hemendra Giri Goswami and Hem Giri Goswami to be accused persons and during course of investigation, based on their memorandum statement, applicant was arrested. He submits that after their arrest cash of Rs. 25,000/- was seized from the applicant. Hence he may not be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the bail application. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, period of pre-trial detention of applicant and submission of learned counsel for the State, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- (a) 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. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause, 4 the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) 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 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. (d) 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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) alfiza JUDGE