Bharat Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2025:CGHC:8229

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 1309 of 2025

¶6

1 - Bharat Singh S/o Gulab Singh Aged About 49 Years

¶7

2 - Shobhnath Shyam S/o Late Baishakhu Shyam Aged About 58 Years Both are R/o Doujara (Imlipara) P.S. Gourela, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Applicants

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Gourela, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Applicants : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate For State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

17/02/2025

¶16

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested on 22/11/2024 in connection with Crime No. 201/2017, registered at Police Station Gourela, District Gourela, Pendra

¶17

Digitally signed byASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2025.02.18 16:38:14 +0530

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

Marwahi, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶20

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19/08/2017 informer Gulab Singh lodged a report alleging that on 19/08/2017 at about 8.00 PM the deceased Gopal Singh, who is his younger son, had gone towards the field along with his younger son Ansh. Thereafter, in the morning at about 7.00 AM Shobhnath Shyam and Jaipal Porte came to the house of the complainant and informed that the Gopal Singh has been murdered. Thereafter, he reached to the field, where it was shown that the deceased was lying on the cot and there was a injury caused by sharp edged weapon on the head of the deceased. The blood was lying below the cot. On the report of the complainant offence was registered and after the statement of the eye-witnesses, the applicants were arrested after seven years of the incident.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the incident took place on 19/08/2017 and the statement of eye witnesses have been recorded on 20/11/2024 i.e. after 07 years of the incident. He would next contend that the age of the eye witness at the time of incident was three years and the statement was recorded when he attained the age of 10 years. He would next contend that the eye witness has stated that the deceased was murdered by way of Halberd (Farsa) but in the memorandum axe was mentioned. He would lastly contend that the applicants are in jail since 22/11/2024, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶25

Perusal of the documents would show that the incident took place in the year 2017 and the statement of the eye witness was recorded in the year 2024 and at the time of incident the eye witness was very tendered age of 03 years and his statement has been recorded after he became 10 years old and on the basis of the same after 07 years the applicants have been arrested. Considering the same and further taking into consideration the fact that the applicants are in jail since 22/11/2024 and the charge-sheet in this case has been filed, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail.

¶26

Let applicants Bharat Singh & Shobhnath Shyam, involved in Crime No.201/2017, under Sections 302, 120B, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, police station Gourela, District Gourela, Pendra Marwahi, C.G., be released on bail on each of them furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(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.

¶28

(ii) the applicants shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bhartiya

¶29

4 / 4

¶30

Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

¶31

(iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS, 2023 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

¶32

(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 2023. If in the opinion of the trial Court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient 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.

¶33

Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶36

ashu

Bharat Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kush Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narayan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sakshi Dixit Vs Priyanshu Dixit

Anita Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anand Kombe Vs Smt. Kritika Kombe

Smt. Dhanmat Bai Vs Rajkumar Banjara