1 2025:CGHC:49436 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6600 of 2025 Vishnu Dahariya S/o Prandas Dahariya Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Murtipara, Tenduwa, Police Station And Tahsil Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lormi, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.09.2025 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. 448/2025, registered at Police Station : Lormi, District - Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Mohan Lal Sahu, lodged a report at Police Station Lormi stating that on the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 night of 14.06.2025, after having dinner, he went to sleep with his family. When he woke up at around 4:00 AM, he discovered that the submersible pump of HP Company installed in his orchard adjacent to his field had been stolen by some unknown person. Based on his report, an FIR was registered under Crime No. 448/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 303 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and investigation was initiated. During the investigation of Crime No. 443/2025, registered under Sections 305(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, accused persons Shera Baghel, Vishnu Dahariya, Rahul Baramate, and Shivshankar Anchal were arrested. In their memorandum statements, they admitted to collectively committing the theft of the submersible pump from the complainant’s orchard. Consequently, they were arrested and taken on remand for further investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case without any direct or reliable evidence. It is argued that the entire case against the applicant is based solely on the uncorroborated memorandum statement of co-accused Shera Baghel, which, as per settled law, is not admissible substantive evidence. No independent witness, CCTV footage, fingerprints, or forensic evidence has been produced to establish the applicant’s involvement in the alleged theft. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of the stolen bore machine lacks independent corroboration and appears to have been made under coercion. The offence under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, though serious, is not punishable with life 3 imprisonment or death penalty, and the applicant has clean antecedents apart from one unproven case still under investigation. She also submits that the present applicant has only 01 previous criminal antecedent, has been explained in this bail application, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, he is in jail since 26.07.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, she prays grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. She also submits that the accused persons, including the present applicant, are involved in a series of organized thefts of submersible pumps, as revealed during the investigation of Crime No. 443/2025. It is contended that, based on their memorandum statements, the stolen pump from the complainant’s orchard was also recovered, clearly establishing their active participation in the offence, and having criminal antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that though the allegation is that the applicant and other co- accused persons have committed theft of submersible pumps, but he is in jail since 26.07.2025 and further considering the fact that the present applicant has only 01 criminal antecedent and the same 4 has been explained in this bail application, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let the applicant, Vishnu Dahariya, involved in Crime No. 448/2025, registered at Police Station : Lormi, District - Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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 court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 5 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 sufficient 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. Office 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