1 2025:CGHC:7326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1167 of 2025 1 - Shekhar Mahapatra S/o Nityanand Mahapatra Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Balauda, Police Station- Balauda, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Bannu Gadtiya S/o Suresh Gadtiya Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Navapara, Police Station- Balauda, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Rupanand Behra S/o Chhabilal Behra Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Balauda, Police Station- Balauda, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Sadanand Behra S/o Ravilal Behra Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Balauda, Police Station- Balauda, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- SHO, Police Station- Saraipali, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2025 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. 261/2024, registered at Police Station : Saraipali, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 296, 309(4), 351(2), 311, 310(2), 312(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Secitons 25 & 27 of Arms Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.10 19:25:23 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.10.2024, the victim, Meghnath Pareva, lodged an FIR alleging that at around 4:00 AM, while he was on his way to the vegetable market with his friend Loknath Sarvas, they were intercepted by three persons on a motorcycle. When he protested, applicant No. 1, who was addressed by name by the other accused allegedly assaulted him on his left thigh, while the others looted Rs. 7,000/- from him. Applicant No. 1 then reportedly called out to applicants No. 2 and 3 by name and instructed them to flee, after which they all escaped from the scene. The complainant further stated that he could identify applicant No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that as per the FIR itself, the complainant has not properly seen the applicant No. 2, 3 and 4 and therefore, he has specifically stated that he can only identify applicant No. 01, yet others have been implicated in this case. He further submits that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicants, the knife which has been seized from the applicant No. 01, is very commonly available vegetable cutting knife and thus mere seizure will not be sufÏcient. He further submits that the applicants No. 01 and 04 have no previous criminal antecedent, applicant No. 02 has two previous criminal antecedents and applicant No.03 has one criminal antecedent. He further submits that the injured person was received injuries simple in nature nor any in a grievous nature. He also 3 submits that the applicants No. 1, 2 & 3 are in jail since 07.10.2024 and applicant No. 4 is in jail since 26.10.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants in the present case. 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 submits that the applicant No. 02 has two previous criminal antecedents and applicant No.03 has one criminal antecedent which shows that the applicants are a habitual offender. He further submitted that the present applicant assaulted the injured on his left thigh, and also looted Rs. 7,000/- from him. 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 that the injuries received by the injured person is found to be simple in nature and non vital part of the body, moreover, the applicants No. 01 and 04 have no previous criminal antecedent, applicant No. 02 has two previous criminal antecedents and applicant No.03 has one criminal antecedent which was explained in the para No.4(a) and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the applicants No. 1, 2 & 3 are in jail since 07.10.2024 and applicant No. 4 is in jail since 26.10.2024 , 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 4 regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Shekhar Mahapatra, Bannu Gadtiya, Rupanand Behra and Sadanand Behra involved in Crime No. 261/2024, registered at Police Station : Saraipali, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 296, 309(4), 351(2), 311, 310(2), 312(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Secitons 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 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 5 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. 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