MCRC/7077/2024 of RAJKUMAR CHOUHAN Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 20 December 2024

1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.

2.

3.

4. 279/2024, registered at Police Station – Dipka, District – Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A), 317(2), 317(5) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, in short BNS.

The case of the prosecution, is that on 13.09.24 the complainant namely Vijay Jaiswal has lodged the written report against the unknown person stating that they have made theft of house made articles total costing Rs.3,00,000/- on 07.09.24 from Kerakachhar Gauthan, thereafter Police has lodged the F.I.R. against the unknown person and after investigation Police arrested the applicants for aforesaid offences. Hence, this application.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicants. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicants are in jail since 14.09.2024, 13.09.2024, and 13.09.2024, respectively, and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicants, and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that on 13.09.24 the complainant namely Vijay Jaiswal has lodged the written report against the unknown person stating that they have made theft of house made articles total costing Rs.3,00,000/- on 07.09.24 from Kerakachhar Gauthan, thereafter Police has lodged the F.I.R. against the unknown person and after investigation Police arrested the applicants for aforesaid offences, and the seizure of the articles has been made from the accused namely, Dharmendra Kumar Kanwar, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record.documents available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that there is no any criminal antecedents registered against the present applicants, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants, the applicants are in jail since 14.09.2024, 13.09.2024, and 13.09.2024, respectively, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application.nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that there is no any criminal antecedents registered against the present applicants, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants, the applicants are in jail since 14.09.2024, 13.09.2024, and 13.09.2024, respectively, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application.

7. Let applicants, Vikas Yadav, Rajkumar Chouhan, and Dharmendra Kumar Kanwar, involved in Crime No. 279/2024, registered at Police Station – Dipka, District – Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A), 317(2), 317(5) and 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-Kumar Kanwar, involved in Crime No. 279/2024, registered at Police Station – Dipka, District – Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A), 317(2), 317(5) and 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant 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.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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

(iv) The applicant 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 applicant is 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 him 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