1 2025:CGHC:5769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 882 of 2025 Vikram Bhatt S/o Ravi Bhatt Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Ward No. 02, Devarpara, Mahuarbhantha Sarangarh, P.S. And Tah. Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Prakash Lahrey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.160/2024, registered at Police Station Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 3(5) of the BNS. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that the complainant has lodged a report to the concerned Police Station, alleging that on the date of incident, the unknown persons have entered in his house by breaking lock and committed theft of gold, silver and cash amount of Rs. 35,000/- total amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- from his house and on the basis of complaint mad, the police has registered the case under Section 331 (4), 305(a), 3(5) of BNS against the unknown persons and after investigation, the police has arrested the present applicant on the memorandum statement. Hence the bail application. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence. He further submits that there is no direct allegation against the present applicant and only vague allegations are levelled against him. Looking to the material available on records, prima facie case is not made out against the present applicant. The applicant has neither entered in the house nor committed theft of any article of the complainant’s house and the prosecution has also not collected sufÏcient material fro the possession of the applicant regarding theft of the said article. Further, two co-accused persons, namely, Sarvan Bhatt and Dinu Vaishnav have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8805 of 2024 and in MCRC No. 487 of 2024 vide order dated 07.01.2025 and 17.01.2025, respectively, and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co- accused persons. He lastly submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2024 and though the charge-sheet has been filed, 3 the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the applicant along with other co-accused persons have entered into the house of the complainant, committed theft of gold, silver jewelry and cash amount of Rs.35,000/- total amounting Rs.1,50,000/-. Further, he has two criminal antecedents, which are of the years 2022 and 2024, which itself shows that applicant is a habitual offender. Hence, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that two co-accused persons, namely, Sarvan Bhatt and Dinu Vaishnav have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8805 of 2024 and in MCRC No. 487 of 2024 vide order dated 07.01.2025 and 17.01.2025, respectively, and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2024 and though the charge-sheet has already been filed, but the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 6. 6. Let applicant, Vikram Bhatt, involved in Crime No.160/2024, registered at Police Station Baramkela, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the 4 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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 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 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 5 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil