Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6739 (CHH)

OMAN DHRUV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/949/2025 · 2025-02-03

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:6081 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 949 of 2025 1 - Oman Dhruv S/o Anak Dhruv Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Chhachhanpairi, P S- Mujgahan, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Manish Kumar Dhruv S/o Domanlal Dhruv Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Basin, P S - Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, C.G. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bhakhara, Dist. - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.02.2025 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. 202/2024, registered at Police Station : Bhakhara District - Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a complaint with the police on November 4, 2024, stating that on RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.04 16:32:59 +0530 2 November 3, 2024, he was attending the “Matar-Madai” festival in his village near Sheetal Chowk when, at around 7:00 PM, Manish Dhruv, along with his relatives, started a scufÒe with Devendra. The altercation initially involved fist-fighting. During the scufÒe, one of the co-accused threatened to kill the complainant. Subsequently, he pulled out a knife and stabbed the complainant multiple times, causing severe injuries that required hospitalization. This incident led to the registration of the present case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent person and have been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the present applicants along with co-accused person had gone to see the fair when the incident took place and the applicants are alleged to have assaulted the injured with a knife whereas the other co-accused assaulted them with hands and fists. However, the ultrasound scan report of the abdomen and the query report indicate that no significant abnormality was detected in the injuries caused by the knife on the chest and abdomen. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicants are in jail since 05.11.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicants and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further 3 submits that the present applicants along with his relatives, started a scufÒe with complainant. The altercation initially involved fist- fighting. During the scufÒe, one of the co-accused threatened to kill the complainant. Subsequently, applicants pulled out a knife and stabbed the complainant multiple times, causing severe injuries that required hospitalization. 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 he present applicants along with co-accused person had gone to see the fair when the incident took place and the applicants are alleged to have assaulted the injured with a knife whereas the other co-accused assaulted them with hands and fists, however, the ultrasound scan report of the abdomen and the query report indicate that no significant abnormality was detected in the injuries caused by the knife on the chest and abdomen, and further the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicants are in jail since 05.11.2024, 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. 7. 7. Let the Applicants – Oman Dhruv and Manish Kumar Dhruv, involved in Crime No. 202/2024, registered at Police Station : Bhakhara District - Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, 4 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, 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 5 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 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