1 2025:CGHC:2513 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 89 of 2025 Anil Kumar Rathore S/o Kheemraj Rathore Aged About 39 Years R/o Venkatapuram Last Bus Stop 2062, P.S. Alwal, District- Malkajgiri Hyderabad (Telangana), (As Per Challan) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Khamardi, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh … Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 384/2024, registered at Police Station – Khamardi, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023( in short ‘BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that that a complainant reported a burglary at the Khamhardih police station, stating that on 09.09.2024, at PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.16 10:57:53 +0530 2 6:00 a.m., his sister Ritika Mishra discovered their house had been broken into. She had studied until 2:00 a.m. and then gone to sleep with their mother. Upon waking, she found the door to the large room open and belongings scattered. Further investigation revealed that the main door's lock was broken, and marks of forced entry were visible. The stolen items included: Necklace set: 25 grams- Gold chains: three chains weighing 30 grams- Gold chain with red pearl: 10 grams- Gold earring set with pendant: 3 grams- Gold bangles: 10 grams- Silver anklets: worth Rs. 3,00,000. A crime was registered, and an investigation was initiated. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the applicant/accused has been implicated in multiple case solely on the basis of his memorandum statement in the present case. In all these cases, instead, each case has been registered based on the same prosecution story as in the present case, without any independent or corroborative evidence from the complainants. Further, the applicant was not named in the present FIR nor any allegation was levelled against him by the complainant. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 12.09.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that some unknown thief broke the lock and latch of the door of the house and stolen the Necklace set: 25 grams- Gold chains: three chains weighing 30 grams- Gold chain with red pearl: 10 grams- Gold earring set with pendant: 3 grams- Gold bangles: 10 grams- Silver anklets: worth Rs. 3,00,000, further, the charge-sheet has 3 been filed in this case, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the various cases registered against the accused, which was also based on the same memorandum statement of the accused and further the applicant was not named in the present FIR nor any allegation was levelled against him by the complainant, the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 12.09.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Anil Kumar Rathore, involved in Crime No. 384/2024, registered at Police Station – Khamardi, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023( in short ‘BNS’), be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial 4 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 him 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 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. (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. 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 Preeti