1 2025:CGHC:51656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8325 of 2025 Jaymohan @ Lucky Sharma S/o Motilal Sharma Aged About 33 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Jagmohan Sharma In Cause Title And In First Page Of The Impugned Order), R/o Ward No.2 Village And Post- Tilda Police Station- Tilda Neora District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Tilda Neora District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Smt. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/10/2025 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. 358/2025 registered at Police Station Tilda Neora District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Sections 232(1), 190 of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a written complaint stating that he received a court summons from the police of Tilda Neora, directing him to appear in court to give a statement. Accordingly, on the morning of 07.08.2025, he left his home around 10:00 AM to attend court in Raipur in connection with Crime No. 109/2021 under Sections 376, 120B, 450, 506, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged that the applicant, along with other co-accused, visited the complainant’s residence and threatened him, intending to influence him as a witness and prevent him from giving truthful testimony. 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 three of the identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Ravikant Verma, Suraj Verma and Rajat Verma have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 07.10.2025, 15.10.2025 and 15.10.2025 in MCRC Nos.7891 of 2025, 8056 of 2025 and 8310 of 2025. He also submits that the matter has already been compromized between the applicant and the complainant, copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure A/3. The applicant is in jail since 18.08.2025, the applicant has two criminal antecedents of the years 2020 and 2022 under the IPC, in which, the applicant has already been acquitted, further, charge-sheet has not been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to 3 the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that in bail rejection order of the co- accused it has been submitted that charge-sheet has been filed, but the same has not been filed. She further submits that the applicant, along with co-accused, allegedly visited the complainant’s house on 07.08.2025 and threatened him to prevent him from giving truthful testimony in Crime No. 109/202, thereby attempting to influence a witness, further the applicant has two criminal antecedents of the years 2020 and 2022 under the IPC, therefore, the 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 18.08.2025, the fact that the applicant, along with co- accused, allegedly visited the complainant’s house on 07.08.2025 and threatened him to prevent him from giving truthful testimony in Crime No. 109/202, thereby attempting to influence a witness, but considering the fact that three of the identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Ravikant Verma, Suraj Verma and Rajat Verma have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 07.10.2025, 15.10.2025 and 15.10.2025 in MCRC Nos.7891 of 2025, 8056 of 2025 and 8310 of 2025 and the matter has already been compromized between the parties, further the applicant has two criminal antecedents of the years 2020 and 2022 under the 4 IPC, in which, the applicant has already been acquitted, though in the bail rejection order of the co-accused it has been submitted that charge-sheet has been filed, but the same has not been filed, as such, 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. Let the Applicant-Jaymohan @ Lucky Sharma, involved in Crime No. 358/2025 registered at Police Station Tilda Neora District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 232(1), 190 of BNS, 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 5 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, (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