Kundan Jha vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 133/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 324(4), 109, 3(5) of BNS.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the night of 20.08.2025 at around 11:30 PM, an incident of assault took place involving the complainant Yash Kumar. On 21.08.2025 at 4:45 AM, he lodged FIR No. 133/2025 at Police Station Bhatgaon, alleging that accused persons Kundan Jha (present applicant), Suraj Jha and Aniket Gupta attacked the victim Shravan Jaiswal. In particular, Kundan Jha allegedly assaulted the injured/victim with a knife on the head, causing injury. Subsequently, a counter case (Crime No. 134/2025) was registered on 23.08.2025 at 6:37 PM by Arya Jha, wife of accused Kundan Jha, three days after the original incident. The police report indicates that main accused Suraj Jha and Aniket (Lucky) absconded after the incident, and Aniket’s anticipatory bail was rejected. Hence, the bail application.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the wife of the applicant lodged cross FIR against the complainant party, which was registered as case Crime No.134 of 2025 on 23.08.2025, in which the complainant party has been granted bail by the trial Court. He also submits that the younger brother of the applicant was assaulted and sustained injuries, further the complainant party is an influential person. He later submits that the daughter of the applicant, who was aged about 6 years was died on 19.10.2025 due to drowning in river, merg intimation of the same has been annexed as Annexure A/8. The applicant is in jail since 27.09.2025 and he has 24 criminal antecedents, but last case is of the year 2017 and the applicant is an SECL employee, further charge-sheet has not been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured by hitting him on the head with a knife, causing injury, so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has 24 criminal antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 27.09.2025, the fact that though the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured by hitting him on the head with a knife, causing injury and charge-sheet has not been filed, but considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the applicant has 24 criminal antecedents, but last case is of the year 2017 and the applicant is an SECL employee, as such, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

Let the Applicant-Kundan Jha, involved in Crime No. 133/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 324(4), 109, 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

(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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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.

(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.

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