1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1994 of 2026 Sudhir Singh @ Dheman Singh S/o Shri Jhulan Singh @ Jhulan Rai Aged About 28 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Jhulan Ray), R/o Village Khamhari, P.S. G.B. Nagar (Wrongly Mentioned As G.V. Nagar Tarwara), Tarwara, Distt. Siwan, Bihar. ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Kotra Road, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mrs. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 06.04.2026 1. Applicant has filed this third 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. 125/2020 registered at Police Station –Kotra Road, District- Raigarh, (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 302, 397, 307, 120-B, 398 & 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. First bail application of the present applicant was withdrawn with direction to learned trial Court to expedite the trial vide order dated 08.01.2024 in MCRC No. 2 6272 of 2023. Second bail application of the present applicant was also dismissed on merits vide order dated 06.08.2024 in MCRC No.5187 of 2024. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that, the applicant along with other co- accused persons committed loot at ATM machine. At the time of committing such offence of robbery/loot the driver of vehicle in which cash was being carried was also shot dead. After the offence was registered against the unknown person, during investigation based on CCTV footage applicant was arrested on 06.07.2020 in the aforementioned crime. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime, he has not committed offence as alleged. He further submits that at this stage he is not pressing this bail application on merits and is only seeking release of applicant on the ground of delay of trial. He submits that after rejection of second bail application only five witnesses have been examined and as many as 36 witnesses are still remaining to be examined and in view of proceeding of trial it cannot be expected that the trial could be concluded within a short period of time. Trial may take a considerable time to conclude and applicant as of now has completed about 05 years and 8 months of pre- trial detention in jail. Hence he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that in the charge-sheet prima facie material is available against the applicant to connect him in the crime. She also referred to seizure memo to submit 3 that from possession of applicant apart from cash of about eight lakhs, pistol had also been seized and one empty ragzine. 5. Pursuant to the order passed on the last date of hearing, Superintendent of Police, Raigarh has appeared before this Court through virtual mode. He submits that with regard to the non-returning of bailable warrant and the arrest warrant he is going to take action against the officers and he further submits that he will be looking to the service of summons and warrants upon the prosecution witnesses. 6. At this stage learned counsel for applicant submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the delay of trial have extended the benefit of bail to applicant therein and in support of his contention he places reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in 2021 SC 56 713 and also in case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2024 9 SCC 813. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the bail application. 8. It is not in dispute that since last about five years and eight months only 36 witnesses have been examined out of total 67 witnesses. The last witness i.e. the 36th witness has been examined on 19.03.2026. In the aforementioned facts of the case, considering the period of pre-trial detention i.e. of about five years and eight months and also considering the above referred judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application. 4 9. 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 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 him counsel. In case of him 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. 5 10. 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) Alfiza JUDGE