1 2025:CGHC:35849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1091 of 2025 • Samad S/o Islamuddin Aged About 32 Years R/o 468 Gali No. 27, New Islam Nagar, P.S. Lisadigate, Meerut District- Uttar Pradesh .. Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Makdi District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 24.07.2024 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 01/2025, registered at Police Station – Makdi, District – Kondagaon (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 61(1)(a), 3(5), 316(2), 316(4), 112(2) of BNS 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant namely Ramji Yadav has lodged a written complaint on 19.01.2025 with VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.07.31 10:56:59 +0530 2 regard to the incidence of 15.01.2024, the battery from ODC Box of the JIO tower was stolen which is valued at about Rs.1,80,000/- and that similar incidents during the said period had happened in other places too. On the said complaint the police have found that accused Gautam along with other co-accused persons have committed the said offence being the Engineer of the Jio Company. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that only on the basis of memorandum statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of main accused, present applicant has been implicated in the case and no recovery has been made from the present applicant. He also submits that the co-accused namely Junaid Malik has also been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 4540 of 2025 vide order dated 17.06.2025, copy of the same annexed along with bail application as Annexure-A/2. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. He further submits the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he has been absconding since the date of the incident. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and material available on record in the case diary and also considering the fact that applicant has been absconding when the FIR was registered, as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 3 7. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma {(2014) 2 SCC 171}, has observed that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant– Samad, filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No. 01/2025, registered at Police Station – Makdi, District – Kondagaon (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 61(1)(a), 3(5), 316(2), 316(4), 112(2) of BNS 2023, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office 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 vaishali