1 2025:CGHC:54596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8939 of 2025 Purnanand S/o Sampat Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Podibhatha, Akaltara, P.S. Akaltara, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kaleshwar Prasad Yadav, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.11.2025 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. 203/2025 registered at Police Station – Masturi Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), 3(5),118(2) of the BNS 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh, by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.09.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7238 of 2025. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.10 17:31:38 +0530 2 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant has made complaint to the concerned police station alleging inter-alia is that on the date of incident i.e. 03.04.2025 as per direction of Pitambar Lodhi, accused persons went to house of the complainant for taking amount of Pitambar Lodhi, and thereafter there was some dispute arose between the complainant and accused person in the name of subject amount, and when the complainant has refused to give subject amount, then accused persons have committed marpeet with the complainant by hand, fist and blade by using filthy language, and as result of the same, the complainant has received injuries on his chick. Based upon the such complaint concerned police has been registered against the applicant for the offence u/s 115(2), 296, 351(2), 3(5), 118(2) of B.N.S. 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is a matter of record that, as per the direction of Pitambar Lodhi for recovery of the due amount, the applicant along with his friend had gone to the complainant’s house; however, the applicant neither assaulted the complainant nor committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. At the time of the incident, a simple dispute arose between the parties regarding the said amount, during which the complainant sustained only simple injuries and not grievous ones. Consequently, offences under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, were registered against the applicant and his friend as Crime No. 203/2025, and subsequently, Section 118(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 was added during investigation. 3 However, there are no ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), 3(5), and 118(2) made out against the applicant. The prosecution has failed to collect sufficient material to support the allegations, and the police authorities did not conduct a proper investigation before registering the FIR. The applicant has been falsely implicated merely on suspicion and arrested on the basis of false and fabricated allegations. No article has been seized from the possession of the applicant, nor has he committed any loot of the alleged article; his arrest is based solely on a memorandum statement. Considering the material available on record, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The applicant has been in jail since 26.05.2025, and his prolonged detention will adversely affect his future as well as the livelihood of his family members. The applicant has a good prima facie case in his favour and reserves his right to raise additional grounds and submit relevant documents at the time of hearing of this bail application. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition, and there is no likelihood of his absconding. He is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is entitled to be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that as per the case diary and material on record, it is evident that the applicant, along with co- accused, assaulted the complainant with hand, fist, and blade during a dispute over money, causing injuries supported by medical evidence. Witness statements also corroborate the incident; hence, there are 4 specific allegations showing the applicant’s active involvement, and considering the gravity of the offence, he is not entitled to bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the material available in the case diary, it is evident that although the main accused, Ajay Rathore, caused injuries to the complainant with a blade resulting in 29 stitches and his bail application has already been rejected by this Court, the present applicant was merely accompanying the main accused at the time of the incident and did not play any active role in causing the injuries, while the other co-accused is absconding. The charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and the applicant has been in jail since 26.05.2025. As the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant – Purnanand, involved in Crime No. 203/2025 registered at Police Station – Masturi Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), 3(5),118(2) of the BNS 2023, be released on bail on 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 5 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 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice vaibhav