1 2025:CGHC:12333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2052 of 2025 1 - Vinod Vasudev S/o Sukhiram Aged About 32 Years Caste Vasudeo, Aged About 32 Years, Resident of Village Gadapali, Police Station Urga, District- Korba, (C.G.) 2 - Ved Prakash @ Golu S/o Dhan Prasad Vasudev Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Village Gadapali, Police Station Urga, District- Korba, (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Sakti, District- Sakti, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12/03/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 292/2024 registered at Police Station- Sakti, District- Sakti, (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 331(3), 305(A), 61(2)(A) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 19-07-2024, the complainant, Rani Yadav, was alone at home and went to the stop dam to take a bath. Upon returning, she found that the lock of her house had been broken and gold ornaments had been stolen. During the investigation, the accused persons were arrested, and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that on the basis of memorandum of crime No.342/2024, the present applicants were arrested in the present crime number and the seizure memo and the memorandum are attached in charge sheet of this Crime number i.e. 292/2024. He further submits that the applicants are not knowing about the other co-accused persons and all the accused persons are resident of different-different places, except the present applicants. He also submits that no any ornament nor any cash amount has been seized from the applicants in this crime number. He further submits that in the present case, co-accused person, namely, Deepak Soni has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2025 passed in MCRC No. 774/2025. further the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicants are in jail since 30.10.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail on the ground of parity. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicants and submits that the charge- sheet has already been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicants along with other co-accused persons stole the gold ornaments. Therefore, the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that other co-accused person, namely, Deepak Soni has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2025 passed in MCRC No. 774/2025 and the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicants are in jail since 30.10.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to allow this application on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Applicants – Vinod Vasudev and Ved Prakash @ Golu involved in Crime No. 292/2024 registered at Police Station- Sakti, District- Sakti, (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 331(3), 305(A), 61(2)(A) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in 4 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan