1 2025:CGHC:7733 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1114 of 2025 Hitesh Padhi S/o Manoj Padhi Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Balauda, Police Station-Balauda, Tahsil- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station, Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2025 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.262/2024, registered at Police Station Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 309(4), 296, 351(2), 311, 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25, MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.02.13 14:27:54 +0530 2 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 06.10.2024, the complainant Mahadev Seth lodged a report at Police Station, Saraipali alleging therein that on 21.08.2024, he was coming by his motorcycle towards Saraipali for purchasing goat, at that time, near Toresinha Surangi Canal, two persons came in motorcycle and stopped him and looted Rs. 13500/- from the complainant. On 06.10.2024 the complainant came aware of the fact that the persons who committed loot have been arrested by the Police and the complainant has identified the accused Bannu Gadatiya and Rupanand Gadatiya, who committed loot from the complainant. 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 record, prima facie case is not made out against the present applicant. Further, co-accused, namely, Bannu Gadtiya and Rupanand Behra have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1182/2025 vide order dated 10.02.2025 and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, the applicant has only one previous antecedent with similar nature of offence. He lastly submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 11.10.2024 and though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. 3 Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that co-accused person have already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co- accused. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that co-accused, namely, Bannu Gadtiya and Rupanand Behra have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1182/2025 vide order dated 10.02.2025 and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused, charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.10.2024 hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 6. Let applicant, Hitesh Padhi, involved in Crime No.262/2024, registered at Police Station Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 309(4), 296, 351(2), 311, 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 4 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 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manpreet