1 2025:CGHC:53113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7564 of 2025 1 - Shera Baghel S/o Babulal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Bandha Police Station Tehsil- Takhatpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Rahul Barmathe S/o Ramsingh Barmathe Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Bandha Police Station Tehsil- Takhatpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- PS Lormi District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali mahilong, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.10.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.448/2025, registered at Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.31 11:30:09 +0530 2 303(2), 3(5) of the BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell is that a report was lodged by the complainant, namely Mohan Lal Sahu, stating that on 14.06.2025, after having dinner, he slept with his family, and at about 4:00 AM, when he woke up, he found that the submersible pump installed in his field was missing and had been stolen by some unknown person. On the basis of this complaint, the police registered the offence against unknown persons and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the co-accused and recorded his memorandum statement, and solely on the basis of such memorandum, the present applicant has been arrested. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that solely on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused, with no independent evidence, seizure, or recovery from him, the applicants have been implicated in the case. The FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons and the applicant has been apprehended merely on suspicion. Further, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not prima facie made out. He further submits that so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, they have only one previous case in which they have already been granted bail and the same has been explained in 3 para 4A of the bail application. He lastly submits that applicants are in jail since 26.07.2025 and though the charge-sheet has already been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicants but could not dispute that the fact that the applicants have only one previous criminal antecedent in which they are already on bail. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that solely on the basis of the memorandum of the co- accused, with no independent evidence, seizure, or recovery from him, the applicants have been implicated in the case and furthermore, the applicants have only one previous criminal antecedent in which they are already on bail and have been explained in the bail application and the applicants are in jail since 26.07.2025, charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time hence, I am inclined to allow this application. 6. Let applicants, Shera Baghel and Rahul Barmathe, involved in Crime No.448/2025, registered at Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 (i) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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) 5 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. 7. 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 Abhishek