1 2025:CGHC:49879 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6104 of 2025 Sonu @ Virendra Patle S/o Narottamlal Patle Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sormal, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ravipal Mahes, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri 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 who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 175/2025, registered at Police Station Saraipali District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 305,351(2),3(5),111,112 & 317(4) of the BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant has lodged FIR to the concerned police Station, alleging that on the date VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.10.08 12:58:29 +0530 2 of incident i.e. 06.07.2025, about 3.00 a.m. to 4.00 a.m. some unknown persons were committed theft of diesel from truck bearing registration no. C.G. 06-GY-9774 at near Jhilmila Town Hall Saraipali, and near one suspicious white colour Scorpio bearing registration no. C.G. 11 BK 9196 was standing. Based upon such complaint made by the complainant, the police has registered the case under section 305, 351(2), 3(5), 111, 112, 317(4) of B.N.S. against the driver of the said Scorpio and other persons and after the investigation, the police has arrested the present applicant memorandum statement. 3. The applicant respectfully submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as he has not committed any offence alleged by the prosecution. The applicant neither committed the alleged theft of diesel nor is he the owner of the Scorpio vehicle in question. He is a well-settled individual engaged in legitimate business sufficient for his livelihood and has never been involved in any criminal activity. The applicant enjoys a good reputation in society, being a respected resident of Akaltara Block, and his wife is an elected member of the Janpad Panchayat, which clearly indicates his social standing and credibility. A copy of the election certificate of the applicant’s wife is annexed as Annexure A-3. The co-accused, Umesh Kumar Bhardwaj, was engaged as the applicant’s driver during the Janpad Panchayat elections, and while the applicant knows him in that capacity, he had no knowledge of his personal or unlawful activities. The applicant is not the owner of the Scorpio bearing registration number C.G. 11 BK 9196, and his implication by the investigating authorities is arbitrary and contrary to law. The amount 3 transferred by the applicant to the account of Umesh Kumar Bhardwaj was only for legitimate expenses such as diesel and petrol for his vehicles, including tractors, Hyva, and car, and linking such transactions with the alleged offence is baseless and unjustified. The offences alleged are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, and the investigation and trial are likely to take considerable time. There are no ingredients in the prosecution story that make out offences punishable under Sections 305, 351(2), 3(5), 111, 112, and 317(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita against the applicant. The materials on record do not prima facie establish any case against him. The applicant has been in custody for a long period, and his continued detention would cause undue hardship to his family, who depend on him for their livelihood, therefore, he prays that he be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application, and submits that the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of 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 circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the present applicant, as well as the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 15.07.2025, 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 4 bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Sonu @ Virendra Patle, involved in Crime No. 175/2025, registered at Police Station Saraipali District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 305,351(2),3(5),111,112 & 317(4) of the BNS., 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 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 5 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