1 2025:CGHC:53919 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8740 of 2025 Mohammad Tauhid Khan S/o Late Akbar Khan Aged About 51 Years R/o Gaurinagar Ward No. 14 Rajnandgaon Ps Chilkhi District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ps Lormi District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.11.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 85/2025, registered at Police Station - Lormi District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 331(6), 127(2), 112, 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Complainant, Dwarika Prasad VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.04 18:38:54 +0530 2 Vaishnav, filed a report at the Lormi police station stating that on February 18, 2025, between 20:00 and 20:30, when he returned from the grocery store with groceries, he found the main door of his house locked from inside. Upon opening the door, two masked robbers, who were hiding behind the door, unlocked the door and entered the applicant's house. One of the robbers held him at gunpoint, threatening him not to make any noise or they would kill him. Upon returning home, he discovered that the robbers had held his wife, Shail Vaishnav, at knifepoint and held her inside. They had looted approximately 10 tolas of gold, one kilogram of silver worth approximately 8 lakh (approximately 28 lakh) of jewellery, and 23 lakh (approximately 11 lakh) of cash. The robbers then tied them both up and left. Based on the written complaint filed by the applicant Dwarika Prasad Vaishnav, the Lormi police station of Mungeli district registered a case against an unknown person under Sections 309 (4), 331 (6), 127 (2), 112, 3 (5) of the Indian Penal Code, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Investigation was taken up. Based on the memorandum of accused Rajkumar Kashyap and accused Mohammad Tauheed Khan, the gold and silver jewellery looted from the applicant, cash amounting to Rs. 14,000 from accused Rajkumar and Rs. 90,000 from accused Mohammad Tauheed Khan, a deposit slip made at HDFC Bank branch, Rajnandgaon, one country-made pistol measuring 20 cm in length, a mobile phone and other property were also seized. And registered the aforesaid offence against the present applicant & other co-accused persons. And after completed the investigation police has filed the charge sheet against the applicant & co-accused persons. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that no specific act has been attributed to the applicant, and therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail. The FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons, and although CCTV cameras were installed at the place of incident, no one was identified by the prosecution, as the offenders had covered their faces with masks; thus, the applicant’s involvement is highly doubtful. The prosecution has failed to collect any legal evidence or recover any stolen article from the possession of the applicant, making it impossible to connect him with the alleged offence. The entire case of the prosecution rests merely on the memorandum and seizure, which are weak and inadmissible pieces of evidence in law. It is further submitted that one co-accused has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 7901 of 2025, vide order dated 07.10.2025. The applicant has been in jail since 23.02.2025 , therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and also submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and further considering the facts and 4 circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the present applicant, as well as the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that one co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 7901 of 2025 vide order dated 07.10.2025, and further considering that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 23.02.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. 7. Let applicant, Mohammad Tauhid Khan, involved in Crime No. 85/2025, registered at Police Station - Lormi District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 331(6), 127(2), 112, 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 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 5 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav