Chattisgarh High Court
Ghanshyam Vishwakarma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:17654
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2294 of 2025
1.
Santosh Vishwakarma S/o Shankar Vishwakarma Aged About
34 Years Occupation Lab Technician, R/o Kumda Colony
Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
— Applicant(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Police Station
Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
— Non-Applicant(s)
MCRC No. 2577 of 2025
1. Ghanshyam Vishwakarma S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Aged
About 39 Years R/o Mahourpara Ward No. 02, Police Station
Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh
—Applicant(s)
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambikapur,
District Surguja Chhattisgarh
— Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate and
Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For Non-Applicant(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH YADAV
YADAV Date:
2025.04.22
11:27:54
+0530
2Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order On Board
17.04.2025
1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video
conferencing.
2. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Applications
under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 913/2024, registered at Police
Station Arakshi Kendra Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.), for
the offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(7), 61(2) of
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding Sections
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Subhash
Chandra Agrawal lodged a written complaint before the Police
Station Ambikapur stating that one FIR has been lodged
against his brother-in-law bearing No. 90/2024 for the offence
of rape by the victim. It has been further stated that the victim
of the case along with the present applicants and one other co-
accused namely Kamlesh Dewangan have prepared criminal
conspiracy to extort money from the complainant for the
settlement of case registered against his brother-in-law. It was
further alleged that the complainant was told to pay Rs.
61,00,000/- from which 5,00,000/- was paid to the accused
3
persons on 24.12.2024 at Ambikapur. On the basis of which, a
crime was registered against the applicants and other co-
accused.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the
applicants are innocent persons and they have not committed
any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they are falsely
implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the
applicant in MCRC No. 2294/2025 has one criminal
antecedent of the year 2021 in which he has been acquitted
and applicant in MCRC No. 2577/2025 has no any criminal
antecedents of similar nature. It is further submitted that the
applicants names have come into the light in the memorandum
statement of the co-accused. They further submit that the
charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicants are in jail
since 25.12.2024. Therefore, they pray that the applicants be
enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes
the bail applications and also endorse the submission made by
the learned counsel for the applicants, She has also submitted
that from the complainant a pendrive has been seized, in the
said pendrive there is 17 audio recordings and in the audio
recordings it was found that applicant Santosh Vishwakarma
has demanded money from the complainant, the complainant
has given Rs. 5,00,000/- to the applicants and other co-
4
accused, which was seized by the police from the joint
possession of all the accused. She has also submitted that the
charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, they are not entitled to
be released on bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature
and gravity of allegation made against the applicants and the
fact that the applicants names have come into the light in the
memorandum statement of the co-accused and nothing has
been seized from the possession of the applicants, further the
charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the
competent Court and they are in jail since 25.12.2024,
therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled
to be released on bail in this case.
8. Let applicants, Santosh Vishwakarma and Ghanshyam
Vishwakarma, involved in Crime No. 913/2024, registered at
Police Station Arakshi Kendra Ambikapur, District – Surguja
(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 308(2),
308(7), 61(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding
Sections 384,388, 120B of the IPC), be released on bail on
their each furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the
like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the
following conditions:-
5
(i) The applicants will file an undertaking to the
effect that they will 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 will remain present before the
trial court on each date fixed, either personally or
through their counsel. In case of their absence,
without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against them under Section 269 of BNS.
(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 BNS.
(iv) The applicants will 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
6of 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.
9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the
trial Court concerned for necessary information and
compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Manish
[ad_1]
Source link