1 2025:CGHC:1764 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 191 of 2025 Goutam Patre S/o Late Santulal Patre Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Basna, P.S. And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.304/2024, registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that the complainant has lodged a report to the concerned police station that on the date of incident, the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.10 19:45:10 +0530 2 unknowns persons committed theft of motorcycle from Agrawal Nursing Home and on the basis of complaint made by the complainant, the police has registered the case under Section 379 of the I.P.C. against the unknown person and during investigation, the police has arrested the present applicant on the memorandum of the statement. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence. He further submits that there is no direct allegation against the present applicant and only vague allegations are levelled against him. Only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the accused persons, the applicant has been involved as accused in connection of crime based upon false and baseless allegation. There is no ingredient of offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC of the prosecution story against the present applicant. Police has not seized any said article from the applicant. He lastly submits that two of the co-accused persons, namely, Purushottam Agrawal and Ashish Dadsena have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC Nos. 6212/2024 and 7217/2024 vide order dated 25.09.2024 and 08.011.2024 and further the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons. He lastly submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 05.07.2024 and though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that he has two previous criminal antecedents under similar nature of offence, which itself 3 shows that he is a habitual offender. He further submits that from the possession of the present applicant, one bike has been seized. Hence, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant, period of detention in jail as he is languishing in jail since 05.07.2024 and the fact that though the allegation against the applicant that he alongwith other co-accused persons have committed theft of motorcycle from Agrawal Nursing Home, but two of the co-accused persons, namely, Purushottam Agrawal and Ashish Dadsena have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC Nos. 6212/2024 and 7217/2024 vide order dated 25.09.2024 and 08.011.2024 and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, charge-sheet has already been filed and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 6. Let applicant, Goutam Patre, involved in Crime No.304/2024, registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC, 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 4 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 sufÏcient 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. 7. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil