2024:CGHC:46744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8302 of 2024

1 - Sevak Ram Kant S/o Sulkhu Kant Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Ward No. 9 Nagar Panchayat Malhar Chowki, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, P.S. Masturi, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

28/11/2024

1. Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 223 of 2022 registered at Police Station – Masturi, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304 (B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.02.2022, co-accused Ambesh Kant has given merg information to the concerned Police Station stating that his wife committed suicide by hanging. After merg enquiry, F.I.R. was registered for alleged commission of offence under Section 302/34, 304(B), 201/34 of I.P.C., 1860 against applicant and other co-accused persons. Applicant was arrested on 24.04.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Applicant has been made accused only on the basis of his memorandum statement. In the memorandum statement of applicant and other co-accused persons, there is no averment that applicant, in any manner, participated in commission of alleged offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., but, his presence is only shown. He further contended that in the evidence of parents of deceased recorded by learned trial Court, there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry by applicant and therefore, offence under Section 302, 304(B) could not be attracted against applicant. Applicant is aged about 70 years and is in jail since last more than two and a half year, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by counsel for applicant and would submits that in the memorandum statement, it has come that co-accused Ambesh Kant (Son of applicant) strangulated deceased by means of electric cable, applicant was present there and has stated to complete process at the earliest.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations, submission of counsel for respective parties, period of pre-trial detention, age of applicant, without commenting anything on merits of 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 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