1 2025:CGHC:16693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2816 of 2025 Shiva Harpal S/o Chandumal Harpal Aged About 19 Years R/o 890, Bharatmata Chowk, Ward No. 33, Shanti Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ganj, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 456/2024, registered at Police Station : Ganj, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305, 331(4), 118(1), 311 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Diwakar Chandra Tripathi, lodged a written complaint before the police authorities on 18.12.2024, stating that he is posted as Manager in Dr. Narayan Agrawal’s organization, known as Hira Group, which is situated at Dr. Subbarao Gali, Fafadih, Raipur. It is further stated in the complaint that on 17.12.2024, the ofÏce staff left the premises after regular working hours, leaving one security guard on duty. On 18.12.2024, at around 5:30 a.m., the driver, namely Bablu Tiwari, informed the complainant over the phone that some unknown persons had broken into the ofÏce and committed theft. It was further alleged that when the security guard, Vinay Pandey, tried to stop the intruders, they assaulted him using hands, fists, an iron rod, and a sharp-edged weapon. Upon reaching the ofÏce, the complainant checked the almirah and found that an amount between Rs. 2 to 3 lakhs had been stolen. Subsequently, Vinay Pandey was taken to B.R. Ambedkar Hospital for primary medical treatment. Upon receiving the information, the police registered an FIR for the offences under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against unknown persons and initiated an investigation. During the course of investigation, the main accused, Pawan Bagh, was arrested, and based on his memorandum statement, co-accused Ramesh Soni and the present applicant were also arrested. After completion of the investigation, it was revealed that the accused persons had committed theft of more than Rs. 12 lakhs. All three accused were taken into custody. The police thereafter filed a charge sheet for the offences mentioned 3 above. The present applicant was arrested on 23.12.2024 and was sent to judicial custody. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the true and correct facts of the present case differ from the version presented by the prosecution. The present applicant has been falsely implicated and has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged crime. The prosecution has failed to establish any direct or circumstantial link between the present applicant and the alleged theft. As per the CCTV footage, the perpetrators had concealed their faces using a ‘gamcha,’ making identification difÏcult. He further submits that the injured person, Vinay Pandey, has not described any physical attributes of the assailants in his statement, which renders the Test Identification Parade (TIP) unreliable. It is also relevant to mention that the TIP was conducted inside Central Jail, Raipur, which further affects its credibility. He also submits that the complainant, Diwakar Chandra Tripathi, initially reported in his complaint and Section 161 CrPC statement that the stolen amount was approximately Rs. 2 to 3 lakhs. However, in a subsequent supplementary statement, he claimed the theft amounted to Rs. 12 to 13 lakhs. Despite this, no ledger, cash book, or any ofÏcial record has been produced by the complainant to substantiate the claim regarding the amount of cash allegedly kept in the ofÏce. He further submits that though certain items such as cash, a mobile phone, and an iron rod were seized based on the memorandum statement of the present applicant, the 4 cash does not bear any identifiable serial numbers, and the mobile phone belongs to the applicant himself. Thus, these recoveries do not connect the applicant to the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has no prior criminal record and is not a habitual offender. Moreover, the concerned organization has not taken possession of the recovered cash through supurdnama till date, which suggests that they lack proper documentation to prove that Rs. 12–13 lakhs was actually present in the ofÏce. This raises serious doubts about the inflated claim of the amount stolen, and it appears that the figure was exaggerated to strengthen the prosecution’s case. He also submits that the present applicant is in jail since 23.12.2024 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant, along with the co-accused, broke into the ofÏce and committed theft. Furthermore, when the security guard, Vinay Pandey, attempted to stop them, he was assaulted with hands, fists, an iron rod, and a sharp-edged weapon. Upon reaching the ofÏce, the complainant checked the almirah and discovered that an amount exceeding Rs. 12 lakhs had been stolen. He further submits that about 5 lakhs has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the cash amount Rs. 5 lakhs was recovered from the possession of the present applicant, but the present applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 23.12.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let applicant, Shiva Harpal, involved in Crime No. 456/2024, registered at Police Station : Ganj, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305, 331(4), 118(1), 311 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on furnishing 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 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 6 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. 9. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan