1 2025:CGHC:8685 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 907 of 2025 1 - Rajkumar Kumar Dhruv S/o Sudarshan Dhruv, Aged About 53 Years R/o Danitola Ward Sahu Para, P.S. -City Kotwali District - Dhamtari (C.G.) -- (Correct Name Mentioned of Applicant No. 1) 2 - Nishant Kumar Dhruv S/o Rajkumar Dhruv Aged About 21 Years R/o Danitola Ward Sahu Para, P.S. -City Kotwali District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through City Kotwali Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.02.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 223/2024, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.06.2024, at around 10:30 PM, the victim was walking near his house after returning from work when he encountered the applicant, who was in an inebriated state. The applicant broke a beer bottle and began shouting profanities aimlessly, which irritated the victim, prompting him to ask the applicant to stop. In response, the applicant went home and returned to the scene with his son, Nishant Dhruv(applicant No.2), carrying the broken beer bottle and a batanchi knife with the intent to kill the victim. They then attacked the victim, leading to the current case before the learned Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the applicants are father and son and they have been stated to have assaulted the injured with a beer bottle. It is submitted that the injuries sustained do not indicate any serious internal damage. It is further submitted that so far as the trial is concerned, the injured and the complainant have not been appearing. Yuvraj Sahu, who is the eyewitness and the son, has an arrest warrant issued against him, while a bailable warrant has been issued against the father, Aaskaran Sahu, as it apparent from the order sheet dated 27.01.2025. He further submits that they have no previous criminal antecedents. He also submits that the present applicant is in jail since 03.06.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 3 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the victim was walking near his house after returning from work when he encountered the applicant, who was in an inebriated state. The applicant No.1 broke a beer bottle and began shouting profanities aimlessly, which irritated the victim, prompting him to ask the applicant No.1 to stop. In response, the applicant No.1 went home and returned to the scene with his son, Nishant Dhruv(applicant No.2), carrying the broken beer bottle and a batanchi knife with the intent to kill the victim. Then the present applicants assaulted the injured, resulting in grievous injuries. Therefore, the present applicants are 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 that the applicants are father and son and they have been stated to have assaulted the injured with a beer bottle and the injuries sustained do not indicate any serious internal damage, further so far as the trial is concerned, the injured and the complainant have not been appearing, Yuvraj Sahu, who is the eyewitness and the son, has an arrest warrant issued against him, while a bailable warrant has been issued against the father, Aaskaran Sahu, as it apparent from the order sheet dated 27.01.2025 and also considering the fact that they have no previous criminal antecedents and the charge- 4 sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 03.06.2024, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Rajkumar Kumar Dhruv and Nishant Kumar Dhruv, involved in Crime No. 223/2024, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, 5 proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them 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 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