1 2026:CGHC:625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10415 of 2025 Purushottam Dewangan S/o Vishwanath Dewangan Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Amera, Police Station Palari, District- Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station, Khamhardih, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupoor Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 42/2025, registered at Police Station Khamhardih, Raipur, District – Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2), 331(5), 123, 351(3), 61(2), 168, 238 of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant has made a complaint to the concerned Police Station alleging that on the date of incident some unknown persons entered his house and have looted cash amount of Rs. 66,25,000/- three numbers of golden chain & three numbers of old mobile sets and cash valuing Rs. 66,00,000/- with help RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 of pistol and thereafter they ran away from place of incident, based upon such complaint the offence was registered against the unknown persons and during the course of investigation the Police has arrested the applicant and on the basis of the memorandum statement of co- accused and the applicant was arrested by the Police. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. The applicant is in jail since 14.02.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. It is further submitted that a seizure has been made of Rs. 4 Lac from the possession of the applicant, and First bail application of the co-accused Manuraj Maurya has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2025 passed in MCRC No. 2432/2025, and thereafter, he preferred a second bail application before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2025 passed in MCRC No. 6583/2025, and first bail application of other co- accused persons namely Rahul Tripathi and Neha Tripathi has also been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 4743/2025 and 5520/2025, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that a seizure has been made of Rs. 4 Lac from the possession of the applicant, and First bail application of the co-accused Manuraj Maurya has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2025 passed in MCRC No. 2432/2025, and thereafter, he preferred a second bail application before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2025 passed in MCRC No. 6583/2025, and first bail application of other co-accused persons namely Rahul Tripathi and Neha Tripathi has also been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 4743/2025 and 5520/2025, charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant- Purushottam Dewangan, involved in Crime No. 42/2025, registered at Police Station Khamhardih, Raipur, District – Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2), 331(5), 123, 351(3), 61(2), 168, 238 of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and concluded the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar