1 2025:CGHC:42481 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5846 of 2025 1 - Dhiraj Anil Reddy S/o Anil Reddy Aged About 37 Years R/o Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Near Ambedkar Hospital, Police Station Panchpawali, District- Nagpur (Maharashtra) 2 - Mohd. Mujjasir Abdul Tawab S/o Abdul Tawab Sheikh Aged About 26 Years R/o Bhanteanand Kaushlya Nagar, Uppalwadi, Police Station Kapil Nagar, District- Nagpur (Maharashtra) (Details As Per Final Report Of The Applicants) .. Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Salhewara, District Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21/08/2025 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.31/2024 registered at Police Station Salhewara, District-Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 281, 221, 132, 324(4), 49, 61(2), 111(2), 3(8)of B.N.S. and section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and Section 3/181, 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.08.23 11:04:48 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 07.11.2024 Vanpal of forest range Salhewara lodged a written report that on 07.11.2024 employees of forest barrier Rengakhar intimated that they received telephonic information from (forest check post Khara) one truck bearing registration No. CG 22-C-9977 broken the barrier and went towards Sahlewara then complainant Vijay Prasad Tiwari instructed the employee to close the barrier and when the complainant reached on the spot he saw that barrier of Rengakhar was broken and employees told that they try to stop the truck but driver of the truck not stop the vehicle and went towards Mohgaon thereafter on the basis of written report Police Station Salhewara registered the offence against the driver of vehicle truck bearing registration No. CG 22-C- 9977 thereafter during investigation the truck seized near Ghat section in unclaimed condition, thereafter further enquiry the vehicle owner was traced as Mukesh Yadav and thereafter co-accused Firoj was arrested and on the basis of memorandum statement of co- accused Firoj the present applicants have been arrested on 28.03.2025 and the final report submitted by the Police Station Salhewara for the offence u/s 281, 221, 132, 324(4), 49, 61(2), 111(2), 3(8) of the BNS, section 3 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and Section 3/181, 5/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that applicant No.1 he is helper of the truck i.e. CG-22-C-9977 and applicant No.2 is a helper of the Tata Vehicle MH- 40-CM-2468 and only on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused persons, present applicants are implicated in crime in 3 question and he has already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No.4262/2025 on 13.06.2025. He would further submit that charge sheet has been filed, there are four-four criminal antecedents against the each applicants, they are in jail since 21/04/2025 and 21.05.2025 respectively, conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and she would submit that charge sheet has been filed in the present case. She would submit that applicants have four-four previous criminal antecedents for the same allegation registered at different police stations vide different crime numbers, which is mentioned in the bail application at paragraph 4(a). She further submits that applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, applicants are not entitled for grant of regular 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, considering the fact that co-accused has already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 4262/2025 on 13.06.2025, charge sheet has been filed, period of detention of the applicants since 21/04/2025 and 21.05.2025 respectively, and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants- Rakesh Jaiwal and Shahjad Khan involved in Crime No. No.31/2024 registered at Police Station Salhewara, District-Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 281,221,132,324(4),49,61(2),111(2),3(8) of 4 B.N.S. and section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and Section 3/181, 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act. on their furnishing a 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 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, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion 5 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 for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaishali