1 2025:CGHC:10271 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1592 of 2025 Sahid Ansari S/o Alam Ansari Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Kotam, P.O. And P.S. - Ghaghra, District - Gumla, Jharkhand --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. - Telibandha, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant(s) MCRC No. 1597 of 2025 Sandeep Yadav Son Of Shyam Sunder Yadav Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Sehal, Tetar Tola P.O. And P.S. Ghaghra District - Gumla, Jharkhand. --Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Telibandha, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar appeared through V.C. alongwith Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Smt. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/03/2025 1. Since the above-mentioned two bail applications arise out of same crime number, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These are 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. 494/2024 registered at Police Station Telibandha, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 111, 308(5), 61B, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Rahul Verma’s, an employee of P.R.A. India Pvt. Ltd. in Raipur, filed a report at Telibandha Police Station alleging therein that on 13.07.2024, he was attacked by two unknown individuals while getting petrol for the company director's vehicle. The attackers, wearing masks, fired a shot from a pistol, attempting to kill him. It's alleged that accused Chaman Lal's UCO bank account (no. 13230110068632) received Rs.80,000 from co-accused Shahid Ansari alias Shrenki on 09.07.2024, via Shah Enterprises in Ranchi, Jharkhand, supposedly for the shooters. The case files include a statement from Shah Enterprises' Bandhan Bank account (no. 101900002982-91). Accused Sandeep Yadav and Shahid Ansari are charged with conspiring to commit a crime at the behest of 3 Rahul Singh. Sandeep Yadav allegedly received Rs.7,700 through PhonePe from Paramanand as payment for the crime, and another Rs.5,000 was transferred into his account (number 212610107- 3163) on 11.07.2024. This account is linked to co-accused Chaman Lal. Additionally, Sandeep Yadav and Shahid Ansari are accused of traveling to Raipur on a stolen motorcycle (JH 01 DL 4692) and meeting two individuals involved in the shooting incident near Welcome Hotel, close to Raipur Railway Station. CCTV footage has been presented as evidence, showing the accused duo's presence at the location. The accused have been arrested and charged under various Sections, including 109, 111, 308(5), 61B, 3(5) BNS, and 25, 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with Crime No. 494/2024 at Telibandha Police Station. The charge- sheet has been filed. 4. 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 one of the identically situated co-accused, namely, Noor Saba Praveen @ Pammi has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024, in MCRC No.8081 of 2024. The applicants are in jail since 17.07.2024 (applicant No.1) and 18.07.2024 (applicant No.2), so far as criminal antecedent of the applicants are concerned, applicant No.1 has two criminal antecedents and he is on bail in both the two cases and applicant No.2 has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of 4 bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that charge-sheet has been filed in this case. She further submits that applicant No.1 has two criminal antecedents of the years 2021 and 2022 in the State of Jharkhand and applicant No.2 has no criminal antecedent, further the applicants had fired gun short on complainant with the intention of killing him, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants since 17.07.2024 (applicant No.1) and 18.07.2024 (applicant No.2), the fact that the applicants are alleged to have fired gun short on complainant with the intention of killing him, but no injury has been sustained by the complainant and one of the co-accused, namely, Noor Saba Praveen @ Pammi has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024, in MCRC No.8081 of 2024 and the case of present applicants are similar to that of the co-accused, further 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. 8. 8. Let the Applicants-Sahid Ansari and Sandeep Yadav, involved in Crime No. 494/2024 registered at Police Station Telibandha, 5 District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 111, 308(5), 61B, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 he 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 6 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. 9. 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