1 2025:CGHC:5753 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 874 of 2025 • Mukesh Verma @ Mukku S/o Anand Verma Aged About 24 Years R/o Suraj Nagar Labhandi Block No. 01 House No. 216, P.S. Telibandha, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. .Applicant. versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Telibandha District Raipur (C.G.) ... State/Respondent. For Applicant : Shri CR Sahu, Advocate. For State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, PL. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31/01/2025 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. 790/2024 registered at Police Station Telibandha, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.02.03 11:21:04 +0530 2 Sections 309(4), 317(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.12.2024, the complainant, Shishupal Singh, filed a report against a person named Mukku at the Telibandha Police Station alleging that on 02.12.2024, the complainant was riding his scooter in New Rajendra Nagar when Mukku called him and asked him to meet near the Telibandha signal. When the complainant arrived, Mukku told him that the area was crowded and suggested they go to a secluded spot in Brahmadev Nagar, Labhandi. There, Mukku allegedly threatened and intimidated the complainant, stealing two gold rings worth around 40,000 rupees and Rs.1,200/- in cash from him. After the incident, Mukku's friend, Pradeep Chauhan, arrived and they escaped on the complainant's scooter, thereafter offence has been registered against the applicant. 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 applicant has no criminal antecedents and other co-accused namely Pradip Chouhan has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 passed in MCRC No.405/2025 and case of present applicant is similar to that of his. The applicant is in jail since 05.12.2024, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion therefore present applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and would submit that charge-sheet has been filed. Rs.1200/- cash has been seized from present applicant and the 3 ornaments which he stole have already been sold by him. However, She would not dispute the fact that case of present applicant is similar to that of co-accused who has already been granted bail and present applicant has no criminal antecedents. 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 05.12.2024 and particularly the fact that case of present applicant is similar to that of co accused Pradip Chouhan, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 passed in MCRC No.405/2025 and present applicant has no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Applicant - Mukesh Verma @ Mukku, involved in Crime No. 790/2024 registered at Police Station Telibandha, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 317(2) of BNS, 2023, 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 4 accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of BNS. (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 BNS. (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. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Avinash