Gopal Singh Koumarya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail as he was arrested in connection with Crime No.25 of 2022 registered at Police Station –Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 of IPC.

¶15

Digitally 2. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. His signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHADate: earlier bail application was dismissed vide order dated 2025.04.07 13:08:10 +0530 06.03.2024.

¶16

-2-

¶17

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.05.2022 at about 5:00 p.m., applicant was quarreling with his father Laxminath Komarya. The voice of quarrel was heard by relative Sangeeta, who informed brother of applicant by name Kulwant Komarya on his mobile phone, upon which, Kulwant Komarya came to the house of applicant and he was informed that Laxminath was taken to hospital and when he reached to the hospital, he found that his father was lying injured in the hospital. During treatment, Laxminath died on 17.05.2022 and thereafter morgue was reported to the concerned police station and after investigation, aforementioned crime was registered and applicant was arrested.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after dismissal of first bail application on 06.03.2024, material witnesses have been examined and they have not supported case of prosecution. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been arrested only on the basis of statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. where they have stated that applicant has assaulted the deceased by means of knife, however, in their examination before the trial Court, they have not supported their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Applicant is in jail since 08.05.2022 and thereby he has already completed about more than 2 ½ years of pre-trial detention, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that

¶20

-3-

¶21

in the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as also in the FIR, there is specific allegation of assault by applicant upon the deceased. He further submits that deposition which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is subject matter of appreciation by the trial Court. He, however, do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the applicant with regard to date of arrest of applicant.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed along with the bail application.

¶23

Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, period of pre-trial detention, without commenting anything on merits of case, I am inclined to allow the application.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail on his furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:-.

¶25

“(a) 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.

¶26

(b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial

¶27

-4-

¶28

court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶29

(c) 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.

¶30

(d) 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 sufficient 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.”

¶31

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

¶32

Certified copy as per rules.

¶33

Sd/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶34

Praveen

Gopal Singh Koumarya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Singh Koumarya 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

Smt. Tapeshwari Vs Harjindar Singh

Nirbhay Ram Mandavi Vs Kannan @ Kanam

Ashok Prasad Tamrakar Vs Md. Sajid Ansari

Smt Fulo Bai Nayak Vs Rathram Paikra

Resham Bai Nayak Vs Rathram Paikra

Amrit Singh Vs Prakash Soni