1 2025:CGHC:4711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 710 of 2025 Shivnandan Rautiya S/o Lahru Rautiya Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Basaitoli, P.S. - Chainpur, Dist- Gumla, Jharkhand ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S.- Lodam, District- Jashpur ( C.G.). ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application 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. 46/2024, registered at Police Station : Lodam, District- Jashpur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(5), 310, 311 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the written complaint dated 22-09-2024 was filed by the complainant, Edward Minj, alleging that on the previous night, 21-09-2024, at around 8:00 PM, while he was closing his shop, a few unknown persons entered his shop under the guise of customers. They slapped him, brandished RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.28 11:03:17 +0530 2 an object resembling a pistol, demanded money, and took approximately Rs. 20,000/- from the drawer. Based on this, Crime No. 46/2024 was registered by the Lodma Police against unknown persons. During the course of the investigation, the name of the present applicant was revealed based on the memorandum statement of Anand Rautiya, and the applicant was subsequently arrested on 30-09-2024. After the investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed, and charges were framed against the applicant under Sections 309(5), 310, and 311 of the BNS Act. 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 further submits that the applicant has been implicated solely on the memorandum statement of co-accused Anand Rautiya, which is not reliable evidence. Based on this, the police arrested the applicant and claimed to have seized Rs. 1,230/- and a mobile phone, alleging them to be proceeds of the offence, without any direct or indirect evidence linking the applicant to the crime. He further submits that the FIR is against unknown persons, and no identification parade was conducted, making the applicant’s implication unlawful. He further submits that the present applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 30.09.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge 3 sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that while the complainant was closing his shop, the present applicant and co-accused persons entered his shop under the guise of customers and they slapped him, brandished an object resembling a pistol, demanded money, and took approximately Rs. 20,000/- from the drawer, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel 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 though the applicant has been implicated solely on the memorandum statement of co-accused Anand Rautiya, and have seized Rs. 1,230/- and a mobile phone from the possession of the present applicant but, the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he has no previous criminal antecedents and the applicant is in jail since 30.09.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this first bail application. 7. Let applicant, Shivnandan Rautiya, involved in Crime No. 46/2024, registered at Police Station : Lodam, District- Jashpur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(5), 310, 311 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 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:- 4 (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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse 5 of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. OfÏce 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