1 2025:CGHC:6109 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 175 of 2025 1. Majeed Khan S/o Haider Khan Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Pandripani, P.S. Bilaigarh, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Kaleem Khan S/o Haneef Khan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Pandripani, P.S. Bilaigarh, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3. Nazim Khan S/o Haneef Khan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Pandripani, P.S. Bilaigarh, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bilaigarh, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 03.02.2025 1. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail by the applicants apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 50/2015, registered at Police Station – ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.04 17:08:13 +0530 2 Bilairgarh, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323 (15 times)/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). 2. The earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicants were disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2020 passed in MCRCA No. 1579 of 2019 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 3. The case of prosecution is that on 05.02.2015, the complainant, Dharam Lal Sahu lodged a report at P.S. Bilaigarh stating that several accused persons resorted to stone pelting and during the said incident deceased Fagu Sahu sustained injury and later died during the treatment. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application for the present applicants. The first application was rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.07.2020, on the ground that the applicants had no apprehension of arrest since the cognizance order had been stayed by this Court in CRMP No. 163 of 2018. He further submits that CRMP No. 163 of 2018 was filed by the applicants against the order summoning them under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., which was issued after examining 31 prosecution witnesses, i.e., after two years. Additionally, some co-accused persons who were put on trial have been convicted under Section 304 of the IPC. The learned counsel also submits that the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was moved by the wife of the deceased after lapse of more than 2.5 years. The present applicants preferred a CRMP against the order 3 passed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by this Court on 09.01.2025. He further submits that the applicants are ready to face trial and an interim relief have already been granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court to the applicants since 25.01.2018 in CRMP No. 163 of 2018 and they have not absconded since then. In light of the rejection of CRMP No. 163 of 2018, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the non-applicant/State would oppose the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended in the present anticipatory bail application. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case and further the fact that the matter pertains to the year 2015 and initially the applicants were granted interim relief by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.01.2018 in CRMP No. 163 of 2018 against the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the wife of the deceased, moreover, the said matter was listed before this Court on 09.01.2025 for final disposal and subsequently, on the same date the said matter was dismissed, the participation of the applicants came into the light after the lapse of more than 2.5 years on the application preferred by the wife of the deceased under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. when 31 prosecution witnesses had already been examined, further the fact that the applicants are 4 ready to face the criminal trial, therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Majeed Khan, Kaleem Khan and Nazim Khan on executing a personal bond and one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicants and the sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Abhishek