1 2025:CGHC:49848 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7901 of 2025 Rajkumar Kashyap S/o Seetaram Kashyap Aged About 55 Years R/o Bharatpur, Police Station Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Gourav Singhal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.10.2025 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 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 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story in brief, the complainant, Dwarika Das Vaishnav, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Lormi stating that on 18.02.2025 at about 8:00 p.m., when he returned home from his shop, he found the door of his house closed. Thereafter, two persons, who had ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.08 10:55:36 +0530 2 covered their faces, opened the door, and the complainant saw that those persons were armed with a knife and other weapons and threatened to kill his wife and daughter. It is alleged that they looted gold and silver ornaments worth approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- and also took away a mobile phone from the house. During the course of investigation, the present applicant along with other accused persons was arrested, and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he, along with three other co-accused persons, was involved in planning to commit a robbery at the house of the complainant, who had arranged cash and ornaments for her daughter’s marriage. It is stated that an amount of RS. 14,000/- in cash was recovered from the applicant, while gold ornaments were recovered from the possession of the co-accused persons who are presently confined in jail. He further submits that the applicant has two criminal antecedents - in one case, he has already been acquitted, while in the other, he has been convicted by the concerned trial Court. He also submits that the applicant has been in jail since 23.03.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court in the present case. She submits that the applicant, along with three other co-accused persons, had planned to commit a robbery at the house of the complainant, and out of the total amount of Rs. 25,000.0 a sum of Rs. 14,000/- was recovered 3 from the possession of the applicant, while gold ornaments were recovered from the possession of the other co-accused persons. Therefore, the present applicant 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 facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into account that the allegation against the applicant is that he, along with three other co-accused persons, was involved in planning to commit a robbery at the house of the complainant, who had arranged cash and ornaments for her daughter’s marriage, and that an amount of Rs. 14,000/- in cash was recovered from the applicant while gold ornaments were recovered from the possession of the co-accused persons who are presently confined in jail, moreover, as the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has been in jail since 23.03.2025, and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Rajkumar Kashyap, 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 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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 4 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 his 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 the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against his, 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek