Sunil Kumar Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 July, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Sunil Kumar Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 July, 2025

                                             1




                                                              2025:CGHC:30693
                                                                              NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                 MCRC No. 5189 of 2025

  1 - Sunil Kumar Soni S/o Manijar Prasad Aged About 24 Years Caste- Sonar, R/o
  Village- Avantikapur, P.S. Chandani Tahsil Odgi, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                          ... Applicant
                                          Versus
  1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station -
  Chandani, District- Surajpur (C.G.)
                                                                     ... Non-Applicant
  For Applicant            :   Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate
  For Non-Applicant        :   Mr. Trevenee Shankar Sahu, Panel Lawyer
                    SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
                                 ORDER ON BOARD
            04/07/2025


        1.

This is the third bail application. The second bail application was

dismissed on merits vide order dated 24.07.2024 in M.Cr.C. No.

4833/2024 and the first bail application was dismissed vide order dated

06.02.2024 in M.Cr.C. No. 458/2024.

2. This bail application is filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he

has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 70/2023 registered at

Police Station – Chandani, District – Surajpur, Chhattisgarh for the

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 506, 323, 324,

307 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Case of prosecution is that, the complainant loged report in the

concerned plice station alleging that on 30.07.2023 at about 09:30 A.M.,
SHUBHAM
DEY
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
DEY
2

Applicant No. 1 along with co-accused persons started ploughing his land

by tractor. When he along with other family members asked the accused

persons to stop ploughing the field, they attacked and assaulted them by

means of club, axe etc. Hari Prasad, father of the complainant and Kalmi

Soni, uncle of the complainant, suffered grievous injuries and during the

course of treatment in the hospital, injured Hari Prasad succumbed to

injuries. Based on the said report, aforementioned crime was registered

against the applicants and other accused persons. Applicant was

arrested on 28.08.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that applicant is innocent, he

has been falsely implicated in the instant crime, he has not committed

any offence as alleged. He submits that this bail application is filed on the

ground of delay in trial. He submits that out of 38 witnesses, only 13

witnesses have been examined till date. The applicant is in jail since

28.08.2023 and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the

submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit

that there are specific allegations against the applicant in the charge-

sheet that the applicant is also one of the assailant along with others. He

had also assaulted the deceased and other persons by means of club.

Hari Prasad Soni died in the assault and others suffered grievous

injuries. Though, the counsel for the applicant has argued that 13

witnesses have been examined, but has not filed their deposition before

this Court. He also submits that the offence under Sections 147, 148 and

149 is also added along with the other offences. As such, there is direct

involvement of the applicant in commission of the aforementioned crime

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
3

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

allegations, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties,

documents enclosed along with the bail application, I do not find present

to be a fit case to allow the application for grant of bail.

8. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is dismissed. However,

considering the submission of the counsel for the applicant that the

applicant is in jail since 28.08.2023, learned Trial Court is directed

to expedite the trial and take all necessary steps for causing

presence of the prosecution witnesses as available under the

B.N,S.S., 2023.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-d/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Dey