1 2026:CGHC:2782 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10355 of 2025 • Mukesh Markam S/o Late Raju Markam Aged About 44 Years R/o Gram Salauni, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Details Of Applicant Properly Not Mentioned In Cause Title And Correct Details Is Mentioned As Per Charge Sheet) ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, Police Station - Padmanabhpur, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 177/2025, registered at Police Station – Padmanabhpur, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 111(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant lodged a report VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.01.19 10:56:28 +0530 2 that his motorcycle is stolen by unknown person and during the investigation it was found that present applicant along with co accused person are habitual of stealing motorcycles from Durg, Bhilai, Mohan Nagar, Padmanabhpur, Rajnandgaon, Balod, Meenakshi Nagar, and Kelabadi and operating as an organized 210 accused gang to sell them. A total of 14 motorcycles have been seized from the co accused possession. On the basis of the above report of the applicant, Padmanabhpur Police Station registered a crime number 201/2025 against the present applicant and other co under sections 303(2), 111(1), 3(5) of BNS. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and nothing has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. He also submits that there are three criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, and same are also pending for their conclusion. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 14.07.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and there are three criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant bearing crime No.320 of 2024 for offence under Sections 397, 34 of IPC registered at police station City Kotwali, Durg (C.G.) and crime No. 282 of 2025 for offence under Sections 303(2) of BNS registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg (C.G.) and in both cases applicant has already granted bail by the learned trial Court and one another crime No.210 of 2025 3 registered at Police Station Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.), bail application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, it appears that applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that nothing has been seized from the possession of the present applicant, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 14.07.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicant, Mukesh Markam, involved in Crime No.177/2025, registered at Police Station – Padmanabhpur, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 111(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), be released on bail on his furnishing a 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, 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 applicant is 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 against him in accordance with law. 8. 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 vaishali