1 2025:CGHC:40250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6319 of 2025 Shekhar Prasad Das Son Of Late Laxminarayan Aged About 42 Years Residence Of Main Road Bababhutnath Gali, Rourkela, Thana Plant, District- Sundargarh Odisha ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Grp Police Bhilai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 11.08.2025 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. 27/2025, registered at Police Station – G.R.P. Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 305(c), 3(5), 317(5), 336(3), 338 & 340(2) of BNS, 2023. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.08.12 11:30:56 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution story, complainant was going from Gondiya to Raipur by train on 04.04.2025, during the journey between Rajnandgaon and Durg, her bag contacting jewellery and cash worth Rs 65,00,000/- lakh was stolen by a unknown person and FIR bearing Crime No. 27/ 2025 under Section 305(c), 317(5), 336(3), 340(2), 338 and 3(5) of BNS 2023 was registered at GRP Purani Bhilai District Durg. The allegation against the present Applicant who owns a jewellery shop is that he had purchased the stolen articles from the co-accused persons however, there is no allegation even in the charge-sheet that the Applicant had the knowledge that the items purchased by him were stolen. Because the material collected by the prosecution does not fulfill the necessary ingredients which are necessary to meet out the offence alleged against the present Applicant. 3. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case the Applicant has already spent considerable time in custody and his continued detention would cause undue hardship to his family, and further, he is a law-abiding citizen with no past criminal record or threat of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. He has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the memorandum of co-accused persons, without any allegation or proof that he had knowledge that the articles purchased by him were stolen from the complainant. The alleged seizure is not in accordance with law, and the entire prosecution case rests on the memorandum of co-accused persons, which, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer (2018) 8 SCC 271, cannot be the sole basis for implicating another 3 accused. The police have already filed the charge-sheet but have failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the Applicant, who is a permanent resident at the address mentioned in the cause title, thereby eliminating any apprehension of his absconding. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and contends that the present applicant, along with other co-accused persons, has committed the offence of theft therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, it is noted that, on 04.04.2025, valuable jewellery and other articles worth approximately ₹65,00,000/- were allegedly stolen from the complainant, Hina Patel, while she was travelling in Train No. 18240, Shivnath Express, between Rajnandgaon and Durg. The case diary reveals that, during the course of investigation, and on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-accused recorded under the relevant provisions of law, a substantial portion of the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the present applicant. The recovery of such property, coupled with the manner in which the alleged offence was committed, prima facie connects the applicant with the commission of the crime. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the quantum of the stolen property, I am of the considered view 4 that this is not a fit case for the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant, therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Shekhar Prasad Das, involved in Crime No. 27/2025, registered at Police Station – G.R.P. Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 305(c), 3(5), 317(5), 336(3), 338 & 340(2) of BNS, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav