1 2026:CGHC:12553 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 690 of 2026 1. Santosh Bansod S/o Late Kishan Bansod Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khaira, Ps Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Manish Bansod S/o Santosh Bansod, Aged About 19 Years 1 Month, R/o Village Khaira, PS Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.03.2026 1. This is the 8rst bail application 8led 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. 486/2025 registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) o;ence under Sections 331(4), 305(a) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 17.11.2025 at about 12:30 A.M., the complainant closed his Talkiz compound, parked his car bearing ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.03.17 11:11:04 +0530 2 registration No. CG-06-GU-9990 for the night, and went home. At about 6:00 A.M., his brother called him and informed him about the incident of theft at the Talkiz. It is alleged that Rs. 80,000/- were stolen from the almirah of the Talkiz and that his car was also stolen. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the essential ingredients of Sections 331 and 305 are not attracted in the present case. The applicants have never been convicted of any o;ence till date. It is highly improbable that there was no CCTV camera or any kind of alarm installed in the Talkiz compound. He further submits that the applicants do not have any kind of business dealing with theft or house trespass. The prosecution has deliberately failed to explain how and in what manner the car was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. The story put forth by the prosecution is doubtful and unreliable. He further submits that the present applicants each have one criminal antecedent, which has already been explained in paragraph No. 4(a) of the present bail application. He further submits that the present applicants have been in jail since 18.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been 8led in the present case before the competent Court. 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 that the present applicants each have one criminal antecedent, which has already been explained in paragraph No. 4(a) of the present bail 3 application and also considering the fact that in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been 8led before the competent Court and the present applicants have been in jail since, 18.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Santosh Bansod and Manish Bansod involved in Crime No. 486/2025 registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) o;ence under Sections 331(4), 305(a) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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 8le an undertaking to the e;ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 8xed 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 8xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without suCcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse 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 8xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate 4 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 8xed 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 suCcient 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. OCce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek