Madhu Sidar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 January, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Madhu Sidar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 January, 2025

Author: Parth Prateem Sahu

Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu

                                          1




                                                                   2025:CGHC:3305
                                                                              NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                              MCRC No. 532 of 2025
1 - Madhu Sidar W/o Ramsingh Sidar Aged About 33 Years R/o Amlibhauna (Indira
Awas) Sonu Muda Raigarh P.S. Jutmil Tah. And District- Raigarh (C.G.)
                                                                      ... Applicant

                                       versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jutmill District - Raigarh (C.G.)
                                                                    ... Respondent(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Government Advocate

(Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge)

Order on Board
20/01/2025

1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of

B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail as she is arrested in connection

with Crime No. 493 of 2023 registered at Police Station – Jutmill,

District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under

Sections 449, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.11.2023 at 6:30 pm the

applicant along with two co-accused Reetu Mahant and Ramsingh

have assaulted the deceased Budhiyarin Bai in her house. Due to

grievous injuries suffered by her, she was taken to hospital, during

course of treatment she died on 24.11.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent

and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Material
2

witnesses i.e. Bhagirathi, Keshavdas Mahant and Pradeep have now

been examined and they have not supported case of prosecution.

Applicant is in jail since 19.11.2023, One of the similarly placed co-

accused i.e. Reetu Mahant has been enlarged on bail vide order dated

12.12.2024 in MCRC No. 8717 of 2024. There are as many as 28

enlisted witnesses and till 17th October, only three witnesses were

examined, trial may take some time to conclude, hence, applicant may

be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for

applicant and would submit that aforementioned three witnesses in

their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have levelled

specific allegations against applicant also in commission of offence as

applicant was also found coming out from the house of decease. He

submits that in the memorandum statement of co-accused, act of

applicant is also narrated in participating in crime. However, he submits

that deposition which is relied upon by learned counsel for applicant is

subject matter of appreciation by learned trial Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature

of allegation, period of pre-trial detention of applicant, submission of

learned counsel for the respective parties, in particular, submission of

learned counsel for applicant based on deposition of Bhagirathi,

Keshavdas Mahant and Pradeep, without commenting anything on

merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarge applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the

applicants shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond
3

in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the

satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that –

(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
his counsel. In case of his 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 her 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.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

                                                             (Parth Prateem Sahu)
 Shayna                                                              JUDGE
Digitally
signed
by
SHAYNA
KADRI