1 2025:CGHC:60098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8869 of 2025 Shani Dhruv @ Sunny Dhruv S/o Chaitu Dhruv Aged About 28 Years R/o B.S.U.P. Colony Sarona, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) MCRC No. 8876 of 2025 Pawan Banjare S/o Radheshyam Banjare, Aged About 22 Years R/o Near Sitla Mandir Of B.S.U.P. Colony Sarona, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Varma, Panel Lawyer RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.12.2025 1. These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 259/2025 registered at Police Station Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 119(1), 296, 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.06.2025 at about 7:30 PM, the complainant, namely Jayki Mahanand, lodged an oral report at Police Station Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, alleging that while he was purchasing liquor from the shop, the present applicant along with other co-accused persons demanded money from him. Upon his refusal, they allegedly abused him in filthy language and assaulted him. Based on the said report, the police registered an FIR against the present applicant and other co- accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and no prima facie case has been made out against them. Further, the applicants are innocent parson and the complainant himself has taken Rs.5000/- from the applicants herein and when they met in the liquor shop, they demanded their money back. 3 The applicants have not committed offence defined under section 119(1), 296, 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS. Further, a bare perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the injuries sustained by the applicants are also simple in nature. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, the same has already been explained in para 4(A) of the bail application. Lastly, the applicant- Shani Dhruv @ Sunny Dhruv is in jail since 04.09.2025 and applicant- Pawan Banjare is in jail since 08.09.2025, charge-sheet has already been filed and there is likely to be caused delay in the trail and therefore the applicants may kindly be granted bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail applications of the applicants and also the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants but could not dispute the fact that the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature. 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 allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature and further the criminal antecedents of the applicants have already been explained in para 4(A) of the bail application, the applicants are young boys and the applicant- Shani Dhruv @ 4 Sunny Dhruv is in jail since 04.09.2025 and applicant- Pawan Banjare is in jail since 08.09.2025, charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicants, Shani Dhruv @ Sunny Dhruv and Pawan Banjare, involved in Crime No. 259/2025 registered at Police Station- Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 119(1), 296, 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such 5 proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan