1 2026:CGHC:7844 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1507 of 2026 1 - Gaind Lal Diwan S/o Shri Ramratan Diwan, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Arand Thana Khallari, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Dhanesh Ram Diwan S/o Shri Pyare Ram Diwan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Arand Thana Khallari, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicants versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Bagbahra District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.02.2026 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. 101/2025 registered at Police Station- Bagbahra District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 303(2), and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant, Sudhir Ram, lodged a report at Police Station Bagbahra on 21.04.2025 regarding an incident that occurred on 27.03.2025, stating that he had parked his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-PW- 7292 near the vegetable market on N.H.-353, Main Road, Bagbahra, and while he was engaged in his work, some unknown person stole the said vehicle. On the basis of the said report, the police registered an FIR against an unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of the BNS, and during the course of investigation, the present applicants were arrested on the allegation that they, along with other co-accused persons, had committed the said theft, hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the names of the applicants do not find place in the FIR and they have been arrested merely on the basis of suspicion without any credible proof connecting them with the alleged offence of theft. It is further submitted that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, as the incident is alleged to have occurred on 27.03.2025 whereas the report was lodged on 21.04.2025, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution story. He contends that the alleged place of theft is a busy vegetable market where identification of the real culprit is difficult, yet the applicants have been falsely implicated only on account of their past antecedents, 3 and after about eight to nine months of the incident, a false seizure memo has been prepared showing recovery of multiple two-wheelers from them. It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to collect any cogent and reliable evidence against the applicants and that the memorandum statements of the applicants are not legally admissible against them. He further submits that the both the applicants have two criminal antecedents, out of which one is disposed of and another one is pending. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicants are in jail since 18.12.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicants and submits that the charge- sheet has already been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicants are prima facie involved in the commission of the alleged offence of theft and that, during investigation, three stolen motorcycles were seized from the possession of applicant No. 1, while two motorcycles and one scooty were seized from applicant No. 2, clearly indicating their active participation in the crime. It is further contended that both the said applicants have two previous criminal antecedents, which reflects their habitual involvement in similar offences. Considering the gravity of the offence, the recovery of stolen vehicles, and their criminal background, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 4 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 though the applicants are involved in the commission of the alleged offence of theft and that, during investigation, three stolen motorcycles were seized from the possession of applicant No. 1, while two motorcycles and one scooty were seized from applicant No. 2, and further the fact that both the applicants have two criminal antecedents, but the charge-sheet has been filed and the criminal antecedents are concerned, out of which one is disposed of and another one is pending in which they are on bail, further the applicants are in jail since 18.12.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and despite the opposition raised by the State regarding recovery of vehicles and alleged antecedents, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the Applicants – Gaind Lal Diwan and Dhanesh Ram Diwan involved in Crime No. 101/2025 registered at Police Station- Bagbahra District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 303(2), and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyay 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 5 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 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 fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial 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 6 deliberate 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan