[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Karan @ Dadu Dewar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:30982
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 5229 of 2025
1 - Karan @ Dadu Dewar S/o Santu Dewar Aged About 20 Years, R/o. -
Bajrang Para, Dewar Mohalla, Station Maroda, P/s Newai, District Durg, C.G.
--- Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P S Newai, District Durg, C.G.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate (through VC)
For Respondent-State : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
07/07/2025
1. Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 298/2023 registered at Police Station –
Newai, District Durg (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148,
294, 506B, 323, 324, 307, 302 of IPC.
2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 24.11.2023 applicant along with other
co-accused persons have assaulted Raman Yadav @ Pappu by means of
hands, fists, club and knife. He was taken to hospital where he succumbed to
injury. Merg was reported on the basis of the evidence of eyewitnesses. After
Digitally
BALRAM signed by
merg inquiry, aforementioned crime was registered and applicant was
PRASAD BALRAM
DEWANGAN PRASAD
DEWANGAN
arrested on 10.12.2023.
2
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely
implicated in the crime, he has not committed offence as alleged. Applicant
has not caused any injury from any sharp-edged weapon. Applicant is in jail
since 10.12.2023 and only five witnesses out of 31 have been examined till
date. Trial may take some time. He also contended that the co-accused
person namely Karan Manjhi, Sooraj Pal, Deewana Dewar, Ravikant Kosare,
Onkar @ Aman Mahar and Harish Kumar Sahu have been enlarged on bail in
MCRC Nos. 3703/2024, 6178/2024, 7374/2025, 7876/2024, 8432/2024 &
3437 of 2025 and the case of applicant is also on similar footing. Hence, he
may be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by
learned counsel for the applicant and further submits that during course of
investigation, applicant was arrested and from his possession one cutter was
seized. He however does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for
applicant with regard to grant of bail to other co-accused persons named
above.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed on record.
6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of
allegation, submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties,
period of pre-trial detention of applicant since 10.12.2023, and further that the
co-accused persons named above have already been enlarged on bail by this
court, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to
allow this application.
7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall
be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on
the conditions that-
3
(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.
(b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on
each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In
case of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
(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.
(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.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE
Balram
[ad_2]
Source link