1 2025:CGHC:16691 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2821 of 2025 1 - Bankim Kumar Mandal S/o Sudam Mandal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Maharajpur, P.S. Taljhari, District Sahebganj Jharkhand. 2 - Krishna Sah @ Kanhaiya S/o Ayodhya Sah Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Moti Jharna, Maharajpur, P.S. Taljhari, District Sahebganj Jharkhand. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Varunendra Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, 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 applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 90/2024, registered at Police Station : Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Niranjan Kosley, appeared before the Police Station and reported that an unknown person had stolen his mobile phone. Based on his complaint, the police registered an offence under Sections 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the present applicants were arrested in connection with the said offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the police has registered earlier two cases against the present applicants and further they have implicated them in the case, they have not committed the offence as mentioned. He further submits that on the basis of memorandum dated 13.03.2024 the police has made a false case against the present applicants. He further submits that police has not seized any said article from the applicants and they were not committed theft of the seized article. He further submits that the applicants have 04 criminal antecedents which is of the year 2024 and they are in jail since 02.05.2024 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 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. She further submits that the present applicants had stolen complainant’s mobile phone and 05 mobile phone were recovered from their possession. She also submits that they have 05 previous criminal antecedents. 3 Therefore, the present applicants are not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 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 present applicants had stolen complainant’s mobile phone and 05 mobile phone were recovered from their possession, further they have 04 previous criminal antecedents which is of the year 2024, but the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and they are in jail since 02.05.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. 8. Let applicants, Bankim Kumar Mandal and Krishna Sah @ Kanhaiya, involved in Crime No. 90/2024, registered at Police Station : Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 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. 4 (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 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 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. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified 5 copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. 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