1 2025:CGHC:50103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7915 of 2025 Mukesh Jain S/o Late Gopiram Jain Aged About 48 Years R/o In Front Of Goga Temple, Kayaghat, Police Station Jutemill, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of The Police Station Jutemill, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08/10/2025 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 281/2025 registered at Police Station Jutemill, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 319(2), 324(3), 324(5), 351(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 3 and 5 of AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.08.2025, a First Information Report was lodged by the complainant Belar Singh Sanwra at Police Station Jutemill, Raigarh, alleging that on 17.08.2025, the present applicant along with three others damaged the Government Anganwadi Building situated at Sant Vinobha Nagar, Raigarh, by using a JCB machine. When the complainant objected, the accused persons allegedly threatened him, stating that they have connections with the Chief Minister and that nobody could take any action against them. On the basis of the said complaint, offences under Sections 391(2), 324(3), 324(5), 351(4), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and Sections 3 and 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 have been registered against the applicant and three others. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that in Revenue Case No. 202506040300006/A-70/2023-24 Rambai & Others vs. Officer-in- Charge of Women and Child Development & Others, the application form, demarcation report, eviction warrant, and witness statements clearly show that the demolition of the Anganwadi center was ordered by the Tehsildar, Raigarh, and executed by the Mal Jamadar as per the eviction order, which are part of the charge- sheet. The incident occurred on 17.08.2025, and the applicant was arrested the same day under Sections 170 of IPC and 151 of CrPC. 3 After release, he was re-arrested on 23.08.2025 in the present case. If any liability arises, it rests solely on the Tehsildar, who has already been suspended in this matter. The applicant is in jail since 23.08.2025, the applicant has 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 applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that though the applicant has no criminal antecedent, but on 17.08.2025, present applicant, along with three others, intentionally damaged the Government Anganwadi Building at Sant Vinobha Nagar, Raigarh, using a JCB machine and on complainant’s objection, they allegedly threatened him by claiming political influence and immunity from legal action, therefore, present applicant is 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 applicant since 23.08.2025, the fact that though allegedly the applicant, along with three others, intentionally damaged the Government Anganwadi Building at Sant Vinobha Nagar, Raigarh, using a JCB machine and on complainant’s objection, they allegedly threatened him by claiming political influence and immunity from legal action, but considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, 4 this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Mukesh Jain, involved in Crime No. 281/2025 registered at Police Station Jutemill, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 319(2), 324(3), 324(5), 351(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, 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 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 sufficient 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 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. 5 (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 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. 9. Office 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