Ramjan Ali Urf Balla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:13075

¶3

AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK

¶4

Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.03.19 15:22:44 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

MCRC No. 9012 of 2025

¶8

Ramjan Ali Urf Balla S/o Late Chand Khan Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Chilhati, Shani Mandir Ke Pass, Thana- Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G.

¶9

... Applicant

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For applicant : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwah, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt. Adv.

¶14

(Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J)

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

18-3-2026

¶17

1 This is 1^st bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 145/2022 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur ( C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 397, 34 of the IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶18

2

¶19

2 Allegation against the applicant is that, on 21-4-2022, Deepak Soni was present in his jewelery shop situated at Gondpara, near Sain Mandir, Bilaspur. At about 1.00 pm, 3 persons went there and looted gold and silver ornaments and cash of Rs. 1,300/- on gun point and knife point. They also fired 4 bullets from pistol. One accused Ramjan alias Bablu was caught when he was fleeing from the spot. Based on above facts, FIR was lodged by wife of injured Deepak Soni bearing No. 145/2022 in Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur for offence under Section 397, IPC, Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against two accused persons. Subsequently when applicant was arrested on 4-4-2023, then supplementary charge sheet has been filed against him, which is pending consideration before the 2^nd Upper Sessions Judge, Bilaspur.

¶20

3 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the applicant was not named in the FIR. He has been implicated on the memorandum statement of coaccused persons. No increminating article has been seized from him. He is in jail since 4-4-2023. Out of 30 witnesses, only 16 witnesses have been examined, conclusion of trial is likely to take long time. Hence, bail application may be allowed.

¶21

4 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the application for grant of bail and submits that there are 2 more criminal cases registered against the applicant, one, Crime No. 322/2017 for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and second Crime No. 37/2022 under Sections 392, 395, 411, 120B and 34 of the IPC, he is a habitual offender, hence the instant bail application may be rejected.

¶22

5 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶23

3

¶24

6 Though there are 2 more criminal case registered against the applicant as mentioned above, but in instant case, he has been implicated on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused persons. No incriminating articles have been seized from him, he is in jail since 4-4-2023 in this case and conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, hence, on due consideration, I feel inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶25

7 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant – Ramjan Ali Urf Balla involved in Crime No. 145/2022 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur ( C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 397, 34 of the IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶26

(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.

¶27

(ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court.

¶28

(iii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶29

4

¶30

(iv) 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶31

(v) 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.

¶32

(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 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.

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE

¶36

Pathak /-

Ramjan Ali Urf Balla v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

Ramjan Ali Urf Balla 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

Dr. Ajooba Radhakrishnan Vs Union of India

Devashish Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Smt. Ruhi Agrawal Vs Raipur Development Authority

Lalta Vs South Eastern Coalfield Limited

Satish Kumar Yadav Vs Sanjeev Kumar Jha

Smt. Reetu Agrawal Vs the State of Chhattisgarh