1 2026:CGHC:9081 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1815 of 2026 Sakib Khan Alias Soni S/o Mahbub Khan Aged About 25 Years (Name Of Applicant Mentioned As Per Chargesheet), S/o Mahbub Khan, R/o Village Lakhanpur, P.S. And Tehsil Lakhanpur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ps Lakhanpur, Distt. Sarguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For applicant (s) : Mr. Prem Shankar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.02.2026 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 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.20 18:49:55 +0530 2 No. 195/2025 registered at Police Station – Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) offence under Sections 331 (4), 305 (A), 3(5), 112(1), of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, proprietor of a hardware shop situated on Lakhanpur NH-130 Main Road opposite the Forest Office, alleged that on the relevant date he closed his shop at about 8:45 p.m. and left for the bus stand, while his mother later noticed an unknown person sitting near the shop’s cash box at around 9:17 p.m., who fled when questioned, and the shutter was found partially open. Upon checking, it was claimed that Rs 2,48,500/- in Rs. 500 denomination notes was missing from the cash box, leading to registration of an FIR against an unknown person. During investigation, on the basis of CCTV footage, co-accused Punit Yadav @ Chhotu was apprehended, and the present applicant, whose name does not appear in the FIR was implicated only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the said co-accused and was subsequently arrested on 26.08.2025 by Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present Applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, as his name does not appear in the FIR, which was initially registered against an unknown person, and he has been arraigned solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Punit Yadav @ Chhotu, which has no substantive 3 evidentiary value in the absence of independent corroboration. The only allegation against him is that he was allegedly waiting outside the shop, which itself is reflected only in the said memorandum and is devoid of any material support. There is neither any eyewitness account, nor any test identification parade, nor any CCTV footage connecting the Applicant with the alleged theft. Significantly, P.W.-1 (Complainant) has categorically admitted in his deposition that the Applicant was not seen committing theft and was arrested merely on the basis of the co- accused’s statement, and P.W.-2 has also specifically stated that apart from one person, no one else was present and that the present Applicant did not commit any theft. Further, P.W.-3, the seizure witness, has not supported the prosecution case in any manner against the Applicant. Thus, there is no direct, circumstantial, or corroborative evidence linking the Applicant to the alleged offence. The Applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of Village Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.), and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence. He has been in judicial custody since 26.08.2025, the investigation is substantially complete, no further custodial interrogation is required, and the offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. The Applicant undertakes to furnish adequate surety and abide by any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, and therefore, it is most humbly prayed that he be enlarged on bail. 4 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State most respectfully opposes the bail application and submits that although the FIR was initially registered against an unknown person, during the course of investigation the involvement of the present Applicant surfaced on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Punit Yadav @ Chhotu and other material collected by the investigating agency, which prima facie indicates his participation in the commission of the offence by facilitating the theft. It is contended that the offence is serious in nature and was committed in a planned manner, and the role attributed to the Applicant cannot be said to be insignificant. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material available on record, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. It is observed that the name of the present applicant has surfaced only in the memorandum statement of the co-accused Punit Yadav @ Chhotu. No independent or direct evidence has been placed on record to prima facie establish his involvement in the alleged offence. It is further noteworthy that the complainant, in his deposition before the trial Court, has categorically stated that the present applicant was not involved in the commission of the alleged theft. Moreover, only a sum of ₹1,500/- has been 5 recovered from the possession of the applicant, and there is no material to indicate recovery of the alleged stolen amount from him. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, and there is nothing on record to suggest that he is likely to abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence collected so far, the limited recovery, the absence of criminal history, and also considering that the accused is in jail since 26.08.2025 and charge-sheet has been filed, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be allowed. 8. Let the Applicant – Sakib Khan @ Soni, involved in Crime No. 195/2025 registered at Police Station – Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) offence under Sections 331 (4), 305(A), 3(5), 112(1), of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing 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 Court. In case of default of this condition, 6 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 their 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 their 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 applicants are 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 7 against him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice sagrika