1 2025:CGHC:56179 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8342 of 2025 Lakhan Lal Yadav S/o Dularwa Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Madkada, P.S. Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Kasdol, District - Balodabazar Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Supriya Upasne, Government Advocate For Objector : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate SB : Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice ORDER ON BOARD 18/11/2025 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. 605/2025 registered at Police Station - Kasdol, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 351 (3), 308 (4), 318 (4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution's case is that complainant, Budhram Kewat, a 47-year-old farmer from Madkada village, reported an incident following a murder in their village on August 1, 2025. The murder was allegedly committed by Ajay and his brother Lucky, with the involvement of several others from their village. When the police arrived to arrest the accused, a crowd gathered, causing a 2 disturbance, including stone-throwing and damaging police vehicles. In the aftermath, the Kasdol Police arrested several villagers. A month later, the village Sarpanch, Lakhan Lal Yadav, allegedly summoned Budhram and others to his house, claiming they would be jailed for the vandalism and stating that the police had called for them. The Sarpanch then took them to the Kasdol Police Station, where he claimed the matter could be settled if each person paid 20,000. Budhram and others paid a total of 22,000 to avoid arrest. Two days later, those who hadn't paid were threatened with jail. Upon further investigation, villagers learned that the Sarpanch had falsely linked their names to the case and had extorted money under false pretenses. Budhram filed a written complaint against the Sarpanch for cheating, extortion, and criminal intimidation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the applicant is Sarpanch of Village Madkada, Balodabaar since 22.02.2025 and due to some political influence, he has been impleaded in the present case. He submits that the applicant was not present in the village or in the place of incident on the said date, as he had went to West Bengal along with his driver in his car bearing registration no. CG 22 M 1500 and the said fact can also be verified through the CCTV footage of the concerned police station. Further, there is no material against the applicant in the case-diary, investigation is still going on and charge-sheet has not been filed before the concerned Court. He further submits that one criminal antecedent (Crime No. 16/2021, P.S. Kasdol, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara) is registered against the applicant and is pending consideration. Applicant is in jail since 20.09.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted 3 before the competent Court in the present case . However, he do not dispute the submission of counsel for the applicant that the applicant is having one criminal antecedent against him and further, he submits that there specific allegations against the applicant in the charge-sheet. 5. Learned counsel for the objector raises strong objection in grant of bail to the applicant and relies upon the contention made by the counsel for the Respondent/State. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the applicant has one criminal antecedents against him. Moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and the fact that the applicant was not present on the place of incident, the applicant is in jail since 20.09.2025, conclusion of the trial may takes some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant – Lakhan Lal Yadav, involved in Crime No. 605/2025 registered at Police Station - Kasdol, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 351 (3), 308 (4), 318 (4) 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 4 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 his, 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY