1 2025:CGHC:50947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8132 of 2025 1 - Dwarka @ Kundan Dewangan S/o Lt. Devcharan Aged About 64 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Kaserpara, Police Station Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sitaram Dewangan S/o Lt. Devcharan Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Kaserpara, Police Station Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kachra Bai D/o Dewan Dewangan, W/o Sonsai Aged About 60 Years Caste Dewangan, R/o Gram Sakti, Ward No. 5, Behind Government Hospital, Tehsil Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Suruti Bai D/o Dewan Dewangan, W/o Gopal Dewangan Aged About 56 Years Caste Dewangan, R/o Gram Sakti, Ward No. 5, Behind Government Hospital, Tehsil Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhded, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.10.2025 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.183/2025 registered at Police Station - VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.10.15 10:36:27 +0530 2 Sakti District-Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120(B) of IPC. 2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are cousin brothers of Non-applicants No.2 and 3 and there was some dispute with regard their ancestral property. He further submits that applicant No.1 aged about 64 years and applicant No.2 is aged about 54 years and they are in jail since 26.08.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, therefore, the applicants are entitled for grant of regular bail in the present matter. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the applicants and submitted that charge-sheet has not been filed instant case before the competent Court and there was property dispute between the parties and applicant No.1 has one criminal antecedent bearing FIR No. 298 of 2025, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of regular bail. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant, and from the perusal of the case diary it transpires that there was a civil dispute between the parties, applicant No.1 aged about 64 years and applicant No.2 is aged about 54 years and they are in jail since 26.08.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, looking to the age os the applicant, this Court is of the view that 3 the applicants are entitled to be granted bail in this case. 6. Let the applicants – Dwarka @ Kundan Dewangan and Sitaram Dewanagan, involved in Crime No.183/2025 registered at Police Station - Sakti District-Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120(B) of IPC, be released on bail on their 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. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, 4 (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. 7. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali