1 2026:CGHC:8836 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1701 of 2026 Ravi Sahu Son Of Uday Nath Sahu, Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Near Parvati Mandir, P.S. Khamhardih, District Raipur (C.G.) (Detail Of The Applicant Has Not Mentioned In Annexure A-A) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Throug - Station House Officer, Police Station Khamhardih, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.02.2026 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. 361/2025, registered at Police Station – Khamhardih, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(6), 126(2), 112(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant lodged a complaint at the concerned police station alleging that on the date of the incident, while he was going by car to look after his property, two unknown persons approached him, abused him using filthy language, and robbed his gold PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.19 18:32:22 +0530 2 chain at knife point before fleeing the spot. Based on the complaint, the police registered an offence under Sections 309(6), 126(2), 112(2), and 3(5) of the BNS, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against unknown persons. During the investigation, the present applicant was arrested in connection with the crime on the basis of a memorandum statement. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the other co-accused persons, namely, Gajendra Chouhan and Kamran Ali have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2026 and 19.01.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 484/2026 and 685/2026, respectively, further the charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 01.12.2025, and the trial is likely to take a considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court. She further submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent of the year 2022. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that other co-accused persons, namely, Gajendra Chouhan and 3 Kamran Ali have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2026 and 19.01.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 484/2026 and 685/2026, respectively, further the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent of the year 2022, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 01.12.2025, and the trial is likely to take a considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Ravi Sahu, involved in Crime No. 361/2025, registered at Police Station – Khamhardih, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(6), 126(2), 112(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 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 Preeti