Saroj Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Parth Prateem Sahu, J

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. 171/2025 registered at Police Station -Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 103(1) of B.N.S. and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act.

Case of prosecution in brief is that one Manish Kumar Sahu has lodged a report in the concerned police station stating that he was informed by Parth Mandal (Constable) that deceased Devendra Kumar Dahiya was shot by applicant, upon which he died on spot. Based on the report, F.I.R. was registered against applicant and he was arrested on 17.03.2025.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that in the F.I.R. there is mention that Parth Mandal is an eye-witness, however, in his statement recorded by police and the court deposition, he has not supported case of prosecution. He also contended that other six witnesses examined by the prosecution have also not supported case of prosecution. Applicant is in jail since 17.03.2025, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant and further submits that from the F.I.R. it is apparent that Parth Mandal seen the applicant firing upon deceased. She however does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for applicant based on the police statement of Parth Mandal. She further submits that police has seized boots and pant with blood stain, however, upon asking, she submitted that FSL report is yet not available.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties, period of pre-trial detention and that applicant to be a government servant and there is no likelihood of his absconding, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

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 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 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.

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