1 2025:CGHC:7758 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 803 of 2025 Balaji Jaiswal S/o Shri Vishram Jaiswal Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Birkona, P.S. And Tehsil Pipariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2025 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 318/2024, registered at Police Station : Pipariya, District Kabirdham, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 7379 of 2024 vide order dated 12.12.2024 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.14 17:56:19 +0530 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Manoj Sahu, informed Pipariya Police Station that on 07.05.2024, his cousin, Komal Sahu, was found hanging from a Babul tree. Based on this information, Case No. 0/2024 was registered at Pipariya Police Station, and an investigation was initiated. The investigation revealed the existence of an illicit relationship between the applicant, Balaji Jaiswal, and the wife of the deceased, Revati Bai. It was further established that Revati Bai had repeatedly humiliated the deceased, Komal Sahu, in the presence of the applicant, Balaji Jaiswal. Based on these findings, an FIR has been registered against the applicant under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also submits that this is the second bail application, as the earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 7379 of 2024 vide order dated 12.12.2024 on merits. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.10.2024. Though the charges have been framed, but the case is fixed for prosecution evidence. Out of 34 prosecution witnesses, none of them has been examined till date, as evident from the order sheet dated 30.01.2025. In light of these circumstances, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the existence of an illicit relationship between the applicant, Balaji Jaiswal, and 3 the wife of the deceased, Revati Bai. It was further established that Revati Bai had repeatedly humiliated the deceased, Komal Sahu, in the presence of the applicant, Balaji Jaiswal, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 29.01.2025, a covering memo has been filed annexing the order sheet of the trial Court to show the status of the trial, by which out of 34 prosecution witnesses, none of them has been examined till date and Also considering the fact that the present applicant has been languishing in jail since 07.10.2024 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 this case on. 8. Let the Applicant – Balaji Jaiswal, involved in Crime No. 318/2024, registered at Police Station : Pipariya, District Kabirdham, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on his 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 4 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 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against his 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 Rahul Dewangan