1 2025:CGHC:61061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10360 of 2025 Santosh Prasad @ Takla S/o Late Laxman Prasad Aged About 22 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Ambedkar Chowk Krishna Nagar, Supela, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Supela, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.12.2025 1. This is the Second 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. 0079/2025 registered at Police Station – Supela, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 3691 of 2025 was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025. 3. As per the brief facts of the prosecution case, on 18.01.2025, the complainant came from Raipur to attend the wedding procession of ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.16 12:14:09 +0530 2 Gaurav Satpathy. The procession departed from Krishna Nagar, Satnam Bhavan, at approximately 9:30 p.m. The complainant, along with Chandrakant Adil, Ajay, Amitesh Satpathy, Rahul Barmal, and others, was dancing as the procession was nearing its end. They returned to Krishna Nagar, Supela, near Satnam Bhavan, at approximately 11:00 p.m. At that time, a boy named Santosh alias Takla also joined them and started dancing. During the course of dancing, a scufÒe took place. Being angered by the complainant and others, Santosh alias Takla allegedly attacked with a sharp cutter and stabbed the complainant on the neck with the intention to kill. As the complainant was moving due to dancing, he sustained serious injuries on his nose, behind the neck, and near the eye. In an attempt to save the complainant, Chandrakant Adil tried to stop the assailant with his hand, however, his left thumb was also injured by the same cutter, causing bleeding. Santosh alias Takla allegedly made a fatal attack with the cutter, and had it struck the complainant’s neck directly, the complainant would have died. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits this is the second bail of the present applicant on the ground that there has been an inordinate delay in the trial, and so far, the prosecution evidence has not begun, therefore, the prolonged detention of the applicant without trial is violative of the constitutional rights of the applicant. He submits that the prolonged pre- trial incarceration, despite no progress in the trial, constitutes a significant change in circumstances and violates the applicant’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty and a speedy trial. He also submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that continued incarceration pending trial, without reasonable progress of the trial, is impermissible, especially where the accused has already spent a considerable period in 3 custody. The applicant submits that although the charge-sheet has been filed and the case is pending for recording of evidence, not a single prosecution witness has appeared before the learned trial Court despite issuance of bailable warrants. He submits that the complainant, eyewitnesses, and even formal witnesses are repeatedly absent despite issuance of summons and bailable warrants, which reflects either a lack of seriousness or the inability of the prosecution witnesses to support the case. The prosecution has failed to ensure the presence of its own witnesses, resulting in a complete stagnation of the trial for several months. The applicant cannot be punished by being kept in jail solely because the prosecution is unable to conduct its own case. It is respectfully submitted that although the FIR alleges that the applicant attempted to kill the complainant by using a cutter and inflicted serious injuries, the medical examination report conclusively shows that all injuries are simple in nature. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 19.01.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicant attempted to kill the complainant by using a cutter and inflicted serious injuries. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that this is the second bail application preferred by the applicant, it is evident from the perusal of the order-sheets of the trial Court that charges were framed against the applicant on 04.07.2025. Despite the issuance of bailable warrants on four occasions, none of the prosecution 4 witnesses have appeared for recording of their evidence. Moreover, the applicant has been in jail since 19.01.2025, and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 8. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant – Santosh Prasad @ Takla, involved in Crime No. 0079/2025 registered at Police Station – Supela, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce 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 Abhishek