1 2025:CGHC:19409 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3295 of 2025 Yogprakash Kashyap @ Prakash S/o Parmeshwar Kashyap Aged About 20 Years R/o- Pamgarh, P.S. Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S.- Lawan, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.04.2025 1. 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. 478/2024, registered at Police Station : Lawan, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305, 3(5), and 112(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.11.2024, an FIR was lodged by the complainant against unknown persons under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Subsequently, the present applicant was arrested under Sections 331(4), 305, 3(5), and 112(2) of the BNS. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the applicant, along with other co-accused, unlawfully broke the lock of an unoccupied house belonging to the complainant, entered the premises, and allegedly stole gold and silver jewelry valued at approximately Rs. 50,000/- from a cupboard. Accordingly, the present applicant has been prosecuted in this case. The applicant was arrested on 13.02.2025. Hence, the instant first bail application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the entire prosecution story is false and concocted, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the applicant is involved in the aforementioned crime, only on the memorandum of the co-accused. He later submitted that the present applicant has 03 criminal antecedents of the similar nature including the present case, further the fact that in 01 case, he has already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3289 of 2025 vide order dated 29.04.2025. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 13.02.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court in the present application and he 3 has 02 previous criminal antecedents. He further submits that the present applicant has stolen gold and silver jewelry valued about Rs. 50,000/- from a cupboard, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused 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 present applicant has 03 criminal antecedents of the similar nature including the present case, further the fact that in 01 case, he has already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3289 of 2025 vide order dated 29.04.2025, moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 13.02.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, I am inclined to allow this application on the ground of parity. 7. Let applicant, Yogprakash Kashyap @ Prakash, involved in Crime No. 478/2024, registered at Police Station : Lawan, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305, 3(5), and 112(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, 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 4 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 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 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