1 2025:CGHC:45984 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7175 of 2025 • Mayur Kumar Adme S/o Radhelal Adme Aged About 26 Years R/o Kandrapara Para, Ward No. 21, Dongargarh, Police Station - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Bortalab, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Anil Tawadkar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/09/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.30/2025 registered at Police Station- Bortalab, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2) & 316(5) of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.06.2025, the complainant has lodged report with the allegation that the applicant VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.09.10 18:03:19 +0530 2 after collecting the money on behalf of ISAF Small Finance Bank and was traveling on a motorcycle from Saleheka (Maharashtra) to Dongargarh and when the applicant reached to the main road of Chendri Mata Dongargarh, Village Bortalab at that juncture 2 unknown people obstructed the way of applicant and had stopped the motorcycle and thereafter the applicant was manhandled by the unknown people by beating the applicant with hand and fist accompanied by using filthy languages and thereafter the unknown people had looted the cash, motorcycle, gold and silver ornaments and bracelet of the applicant herein. During the course of investigation, specifically the call details of the applicant (complainant) the police reach to the conclusion that the story concocted by the applicant by lodging the report is false and fabricated. Police found that it was the complainant who had committed criminal breach of trust and when the memorandum statement of the complainant was recorded, and he confessed the same. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in crime in question. He further submits that the allegation levelled against the present applicant is false and fabricated, since there is no recovery has been made of looted ornament from the possession of the present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 27.06.2025, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the 3 present case. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents but looted cash has been seized from the present applicant, therefore, he is not entitle for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, there is no recovery has been made of looted ornament from the possession of the present applicant, period of detention of the applicant since 27.06.2025, the applicant and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant- Mayur Kumar Adme, involved in Crime No.30/2025 registered at Police Station- Bortalab, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2) & 316(5) of the BNS 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (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 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali