1 2025:CGHC:5309 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 811 of 2025 1 - Ku. Minakshi Kumhar D/o Sonau Ram Kumhar Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Village- Baloda, P.S. Baloda, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 2 - Shivkumari Kumhar W/o Sonau Ram Kumhar Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Village- Baloda, P.S. Baloda, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station Baloda District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/01/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 436/2024 registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Baloda District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 351(2), 315(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.12.2024, the complainant Vikas Kumhar lodged a report before Police Station Baloda, alleging therein that he was working in his brick clin (Itta Bhatta) situated near Dhan Mandi Baloda, at about 1 pm (afternoon), the accused Rupesh and Chandresh Kumhar arrived there and started fixing the wooden stake at his brick making area. On raising objection by the complainant, the co-accused Chandresh and Rupesh started abusing and threatened to kill him. In the meanwhile, son of applicant No.2, namely, Chandresh assaulted the complainant with iron rod whereas present applicants had assaulted the complainant with pieces of bricks. Thereafter, the offence has been registered against present applicants and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that applicant No.1 is sister and applicant No.2 is mother of co-accused persons, namely, Chandresh Kumhar and Rupesh Kumhar, who have assaulted the injured by iron rod, due to which, injured received single injury on his head, whereas present applicants have assaulted the injured only by brickbat. He also submits that there is no grievous injury caused to the injured by the applicants, further there is counter FIR, which was lodged against complainant and his companions by son 3 of applicant No.2 on the very same day before the same Police Station. The applicants are in jail since 03.01.2025, the applicants have one criminal antecedent, which has already been disposed of on the ground that the matter has already been compromised between the parties before JMFC, Akaltara, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicants alongwith other co-accused persons have assaulted the complainant/injured with iron rod and brickbat, due to which, the injured received grievous injures on his person, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants since 03.01.2025, the fact that applicant No.1 is sister and applicant No.2 is mother of co-accused persons, namely, Chandresh Kumhar and Rupesh Kumhar, who have assaulted the injured with iron rod, due to which, injured received grievous head injury, whereas present applicants have assaulted the injured only with brickbat and the case of present applicants are distinguishable from that of the co-accused persons, namely, Chandresh Kumhar and Rupesh Kumhar, so far as criminal antecedent of the applicants 4 is concerned, applicants have one criminal antecedent, which has already been disposed of on the ground that the matter has already been compromised between the parties before JMFC, Akaltara, charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants- Ku. Minakshi Kumhar and Shivkumari Kumhar, involved in Crime No. 436/2024 registered at Police Station Baloda District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 351(2), 315(2), 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on their furnishing a 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, 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 5 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil