1 2026:CGHC:14090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1591 of 2026 1 - Purushottam Sidar S/o Shri Kamta Sidar Aged About 26 Years R/o- Village- Jogidipa, Police Station Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandrabhan Sidar S/o Seetaram Sidar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Jogidipa, Police Station Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 583/2025 registered at Police Station- Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 309(6), 61(2)(a), 127(2), 332(b), 238(b) and 351(2) of BNS. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Prosecution story in brief is that, on 03.11.2025 at about 10:00 PM, three masked persons trespassed into the house of the complainant, Smt. Ramshila Chauhan, situated at village Suraipali, through a ventilation passage. After entering the house, the accused persons administered electric current to the husband of the complainant, overpowered him and confined him in a room. Thereafter, the accused persons threatened the complainant at knife-point, forcibly snatched her gold chain, threw her mobile phone into a water tank, tied her hands behind her back, covered her head with a cloth and assaulted her with fists and blows. By extending threats to her life, they looted gold and silver ornaments, including necklace, mangalsutra, rings, earrings, jhumka, silver anklets, as well as cash kept in the almirah and fled from the spot. It is further the case of the prosecution that during the incident, the complainant identified one of the accused, namely Sukesh, who was previously working at her house. It is alleged that the said Sukesh, along with co-accused Chandrabhan Sidar and Purushottam Sidar, committed the aforesaid offence. During investigation, silver ornaments such as anklet, jhumka and kamarband were seized from the possession of applicant/accused Purushottam Sidar and gold and silver ornaments, including rani haar, tops, ring, mangalsutra, jhumka, anklet, bichhiya, bangles, along with cash amount of ₹83,500/-, were seized from the possession of applicant/accused Chandrabhan Sidar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the present 3 case, as they are not at all involved in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the complainant, Smt. Ramsheela Chauhan, has only identified one person, namely Sukesh, who was working as a domestic helper in her house and the present applicants are merely friends of the said co-accused Sukesh, who has falsely implicated them in the matter. It is also contended that although certain articles, i.e., from applicant No.1 Purushottam Sidar—silver anklet, earrings and waistband and from applicant No.2 Chandrabhan Sidar—rani haar, tops, ring, mangalsutra, earrings, anklets, toe rings, bracelets, rings and ₹83,500/-, are alleged to have been seized, the FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons, no Test Identification Parade was conducted during the investigation and even the seized articles have not been properly identified in accordance with law. He further submits that the offences under Sections 309(6), 61(2)(a), 127(2), 332(b), 238(b) and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita are not attracted against the present applicants. It is also submitted that the applicants are in judicial custody since 05.11.2025 and 07.11.2025 respectively, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude therefore, further detention of the applicants is not justified. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is of a serious nature involving house trespass, assault and robbery, wherein the accused persons forcibly entered the house of the complainant and committed the offence by putting 4 the victims under threat and fear. It is further submitted that the complainant has specifically identified co-accused Sukesh, who was working as a domestic helper in her house and the present applicants, being close associates/friends of the said co-accused, actively participated in the commission of the offence. She further submits that during the course of investigation, incriminating articles, including gold and silver ornaments as well as cash amount, have been recovered from the possession of the present applicants, which directly connects them with the alleged offence. It is contended that the applicants have failed to furnish any satisfactory or plausible explanation regarding the said recovery, and such unexplained possession of stolen property clearly establishes their involvement in the crime. It is also submitted that considering the gravity of the offence, the manner in which it has been committed and the material collected during investigation, no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, 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 the offence and the period of detention of the applicants since 05.11.2025 and 07.11.2025 respectively, it appears that the allegations against the present applicants are serious in nature involving house trespass, assault and robbery committed during night hours and the manner in which the offence has been committed by entering the house of the complainant, assaulting the victims and looting valuables reflects the gravity of the crime and 5 further during the course of investigation substantial recovery has been effected from the possession of the present applicants inasmuch as from applicant No.1 Purushottam Sidar silver anklet, earrings and kamarband have been seized and from applicant No.2 Chandrabhan Sidar gold and silver ornaments including rani haar, tops, ring, mangalsutra, earrings, anklets, bichhiya, bangles, rings along with cash amount of ₹83,500/- have been recovered which prima facie connects the applicants with the commission of the offence and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by them regarding the possession of such incriminating articles and therefore considering the overall material available on record and the gravity of allegations, this Court is of the view that the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants namely Purshottam Sidar and Chandrabhan Sidar, involved in Crime No. 583/2025 registered at Police Station- Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 309(6), 61(2)(a), 127(2), 332(b), 238(b) and 351(2) of BNS., is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dirurt fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal