1 2026:CGHC:3927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 805 of 2026 Mohd. Dilawar S/o Shri Mohd Saleem Aged About 49 Years R/o House Of Jyoti, Dharam Nagar, Pachpedi Naka, Police Station- Tikrapara, Distt. Raipur C.G., Permanent Address Shantipur, Calcutta, West Bengal ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.01.2026 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 437/2025, registered at Police Station - Tikrapara District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 112, 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340, 3(5) of the BNS and Section 14 of the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.23 11:29:12 +0530 2 Foreigners Act 1946, Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Section 3 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.06.2025, the Station House Officer, Shri Vinay Singh Baghel, received secret information that the applicant Dilawar Khan, a Bangladeshi national, was illegally residing in Raipur and running an egg stall at Dharam Nagar, Main Road, Raipur, by using a forged and fabricated passport. Acting on the said information, a police team reached the residence of the applicant and, upon verification of his passport and other documents, found them to be forged and fabricated. During enquiry, the applicant disclosed that he had been residing in Raipur for the last 15 years and had also brought his wife, co-accused Parveen Begum, and his daughter from West Bengal to Raipur, for whom forged passports were also prepared, and they were residing illegally. On the basis of the said facts, the police registered the relevant offences against the applicant and the co-accused. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate. 3. Learned applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter, there is nothing in the charge- sheet to indicate that the applicant was involved in the preparation of any forged or fabricated documents or passports. The passport of the applicant was issued by the concerned authority after due verification, and he has been living lawfully in Raipur for the last 25 years. At the time of his arrest, only offences under Sections 112, 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were mentioned, and 3 the additional offences under Sections 363(2), 337, and 340 were added only after filing of the charge-sheet on 09.09.2025, extending the period for filing the charge-sheet. The applicant has a minor daughter, Lamya Khatoon, aged 15 years and studying in Class-9 at Chhattisgarh Public School, Tikrapara, Raipur, whose studies are being adversely affected due to his continued detention. Similarly situated co-accused, Parveen Begum, has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 in MCRC No. 9594/2025, and therefore, on the ground of parity, the applicant also deserves to be released on bail. The applicant is a poor man earning his livelihood by running an egg stall, has been in jail since 13.06.2025, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that similarly situated co-accused Parveen Begum has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 9594/2025, and on the ground of parity, further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has remained in judicial custody since 13.06.2025, and 4 that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let applicant, Mohd. Dilawar, involved in Crime No. 437/2025, registered at Police Station - Tikrapara District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 112, 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340, 3(5) of the BNS and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946, Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Section 3 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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. (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. 5 (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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav