1 2025:CGHC:58578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9859 of 2025 Ghasiram S/o Shri Lakhan Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Kesla, P.S.- Khairagarh, Distt.- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S.- Gandai, Distt.- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.12.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 277/2025 registered at Police Station – Gandai District - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 61(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) of the BNS and Section 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that, on 15.08.2025, the Station VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.04 10:50:39 +0530 2 House Officer of Police Station Gandai, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai, received information from a village informant (mukhbir) that in Village Manpur, in the house of Afsar Khan, a recently delivered home theater sound box package appeared suspicious and was believed to contain material resembling explosive substance. Upon receiving the information, the police reached the location along with witnesses. At the spot, Afsar Khan submitted a written complaint stating that, two unknown persons had delivered the home-theater sound box in his name, and he suspected that the parcel contained an explosive substance intended to kill him and his family. thereafter police conducted inspection at the spot, prepared panchnama, and seized the suspicious material in presence of independent witnesses. During the investigation, the statement of Afsar Khan revealed that he suspected one Vinay Verma, the former lover of his wife, of planning to harm him. On the basis of this suspicion, the police detained co-accused persons. During interrogation, the co-accused allegedly disclosed in their memorandum statements. In these memorandum statements it was further stated that the present applicant had supplied explosive material (powder/gelatin) to the co-accused persons, which was allegedly used in filling the parcel on the basis of memorandum of co- accused person registered the offence and arrested the applicant and after completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He also submits that the prosecution case itself establishes that it was the co-accused who delivered the parcel containing the alleged 3 explosive substance to the complainant’s house, and not the applicant, and there is no allegation that the applicant was present at the spot, had prior knowledge of the parcel’s contents, or participated in its delivery. The prosecution has failed to collect any cogent or reliable evidence to establish the applicant’s guilt. The applicant had recently dug a borehole, and it is a common practice that during such work, ordinary stone-breaking powder is procured to break stones obstructing drilling. The co-accused had merely requested such powder for breaking stones during bore digging at their own house, and the applicant, acting in good faith, provided the same without any knowledge or intention of its misuse. The alleged explosive substance planted by the co-accused did not explode or cause any harm or damage, and therefore the essential ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act are not fulfilled. Furthermore, one of the co-accused is a licensed holder authorized to possess explosive material for stone-breaking, and since the material originated from a lawful source, the applicant had no reason to believe it would be misused, thereby making his implication based solely on suspicion, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the 4 fact that the applicant has no previous antecedents and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and he has been in jail since 16.08.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Ghasiram, involved in Crime No. 277/2025 registered at Police Station – Gandai District - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 61(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) of the BNS and Section 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 his 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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav