1 2025:CGHC:52739 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8561 of 2025 Naveen Pinjani S/o Ashok Pinjani Aged About 27 Years R/o P.S. Gali No. 04, Katora Talab, District- Raipur (C.G) (Details Not Completely Mentioned In Order Sheet ) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O昀케cer, P.S. Civil Lines District- Raipur (C.G) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.10.2025 1. This is the First bail application 昀椀led 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. 337/2025 registered at Police Station : Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, a complaint was lodged by one Vishal Virnani, proprietor of Shobha Telecom, near Chowk, Raipur. He reported that between the night of 22.07.2025 and the morning of 23.07.2025, unknown culprits broke the shutter and lock of his mobile shop and stole ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.30 12:10:13 +0530 2 approximately 80 mobile phones worth Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash. Based on the said report, Crime No. 337/2025 was registered under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur. During investigation, upon alleged disclosure statements, 85 mobile phones were said to have been seized from co- accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant, Naveen Pinjani, has been arrested solely on the basis of suspicion arising from the alleged confessional statements/memorandum of co-accused persons, and not on the basis of any direct evidence or forensic material connecting him with the alleged mobile phone theft or the crime scene. The prosecution has failed to produce any eyewitness, CCTV footage, or technical evidence placing the applicant at the site during the occurrence of the alleged o昀昀ence, thereby demonstrating that his implication is not supported by any cogent proof. He also submits that the applicant has never been seen in any CCTV footage, and the mobile phones allegedly recovered are old devices used in the canteen run by the applicant’s father. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 24.07.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. She also endorses the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. 3 However, she submits that four mobile phones have been seized from the possession of the present applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of o昀昀ence and further the fact that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. Also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the present applicant has been in jail since 24.07.2025 and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Naveen Pinjani, involved in Crime No. 337/2025 registered at Police Station : Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 昀椀le an undertaking to the e昀昀ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 昀椀xed 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 昀椀xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su昀케cient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 4 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 昀椀xed 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 昀椀xed 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 su昀케cient 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. O昀케ce is directed to send a certi昀椀ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek