1 2026:CGHC:6561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1312 of 2026 1 - Visnu Koshley S/o Dorilal Kosale Aged About 29 Years R/o Gram Nachapali, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) Current Address- In The House Of Rajesh Soni Near Sahu Vastralay, Kashiram Chowk, P.S.- Jute Mill, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Manoj Dewangan S/o Chaibhaiya Dewangan Aged About 30 Years R/o Maoharbhata, P.S.- Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. P.S. Chakradhar Nagar District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/02/2026 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 102/2025 registered at Police Station- Chakradhar Nagarh, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Sections 303(2), 112(2), 317(2), 317(4) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Vishal Dewangan, lodged a report stating that on 25.02.2025 he had parked his motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-22-R7874 outside his house during the night. However, on the following morning, he found that the said motorcycle was missing and that some unknown person had taken it away. Accordingly, the complainant lodged the FIR at the concerned Police Station then after investigation a total of 07 motorcycles have been seized from the possession of the applicants/accused. Based upon such, aforesaid offence was registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged and that the true and correct facts were neither properly asserted nor ascertained before lodging of the FIR. It is submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are general and vague in nature and do not disclose the commission of any offence under Sections 303(2), 112(2), 317(2), and 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and that the report has been lodged with mala fide intention to falsely implicate the applicants due to an old personal dispute. It is further submitted that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and the police have mechanically connected the present applicants with the alleged theft case without any substantive evidence, whereas the applicants have never stolen any motorcycle. The applicants are a young person aged about 29– 30 years and have been in custody for more than three and a half 3 months. It is also submitted that although the applicants have 15 previous criminal cases, in all such matters they have been acquitted, and copies of the ordersheets of acquittal are filed herewith as Annexure A/2. Thus, it is contended that the present application is bona fide, no material is available on record to constitute the alleged offences, and the applicants deserves to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that, considering the criminal antecedents of the applicants, they are not entitled to be released on bail. It is contended that the applicants have been repeatedly involved in criminal activities of a similar nature, which reflects their tendency to commit offences and disregard the law. She further submits that the allegations in the present case are serious and releasing the applicants on bail may adversely affect the trial, as there is a likelihood of them influencing witnesses or indulging in similar offences again. Therefore, in view of the nature of accusations and the background of the applicants, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and also considering the criminal antecedents of the applicants as the same has been explained in para 4(a) of the 4 bail application and they are in jail since 04.04.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 7. Let the applicants – Visnu Koshley and Manoj Dewangan involved in Crime No. 102/2025 registered at Police Station- Chakradhar Nagarh, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 112(2), 317(2), 317(4) of BNS, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient 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 their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial 5 court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the 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) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberated 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 them in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal