1 2025:CGHC:3457 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 538 of 2025 Keshav @ Chhotu Netam S/o Makhan Netam Aged About 20 Years R/o Joginagar, Near Tarun Bazar, Santoshi Nagar, P.S. Tikrapara, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer Police Station Mujgahan, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 74/2024, registered at Police Station – Mujgahan, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 454, 380, 427, 411, 34 of Indian Penal Code. (For short ‘IPC’). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant made a complaint PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.21 11:09:08 +0530 2 before Police Station Mujgahan that on 09.03.2024 at about 3.00 pm some unknown persons open the tin wall and stolen e-rickshaw battery chargers, e-rickshaw motor kits 138 pieces and cables of welding machine, cable of drilling machine and cable of grinding machines, total cost about 4,73,000/- and broken some articles which were cost about 9,66,000/- and when he reached his shop on 13.03.2024 the same article were recovered. As per investigation made by Police Mujgahan following offences were against the present applicant. Hence, this 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 and. It is further submitted that there are total 07 witnesses but till date only one witness has been examined before the learned trial Court and the one co-accused person has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. He further submitted that from the present applicant copper wire in pieces weighted about 8.450 Kgs has been seized. Further, there is one previous case against present applicant registered in Crime No. 83/2021 for offence under Section 457 and 380. Further, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 17.03.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that from the applicant 8.450 Kgs copper wire has been seized, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the 3 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 there are total 07 witnesses but till date only one witness has been examined before the learned trial Court and the one co-accused person has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court, further the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 17.03.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Keshav @ Chhotu Netam, involved in Crime No. 74/2024, registered at Police Station – Mujgahan, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 454, 380, 427, 411, 34 of Indian Penal Code. (For short ‘IPC’), 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 sufÏcient 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 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti