1 2026:CGHC:9242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10326 of 2025 Ramlallu @ Lallu Basod S/o Janaklal Basod Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Village- Lamidah, P.S. Sarai, District- Singrauli (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.02.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 272/2024 registered at Police Station- Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 413 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant was arrested on 07.08.2025 in connection with offences punishable under RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Sections 457, 380, 413 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was lodged by the complainant, Pushpendra Dewangan, before Police Station Chakarbhata against unknown persons, alleging that in the intervening night of 12.06.2024 at about 8:30 PM to 13.06.2024 till 6:00 AM, a theft took place in his jewellery shop situated at Hirri Mines. It is alleged that various gold and silver ornaments, including anklets (100 pieces), laccha (5 pairs), kardhan/girdle (25 pieces), bichiya (500 pairs), finger rings (300 pieces), children’s bangles (70 pairs), chains (50 pieces), coins of 10 and 5 grams (15 pieces), lockets (200 pieces and 5 pieces separately), bracelets (20 pieces), bangles (15 pieces), nose pins (100 pieces), old jewellery weighing approximately 1.5 tola, idols, a flute and other ornaments, along with cash of Rs. 5,000/-, amounting in total to approximately Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only), were stolen. During investigation, the stolen jewellery is stated to have been seized from one Sushant Soni, who allegedly melted the silver ornaments into bars and gold items into balls, and during the investigation, the present applicant was arrested, hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any act which would justify his conviction under the alleged sections. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and the entire prosecution case is based merely on suspicion. He also submits that no recovery of the alleged stolen article has been 3 effected from the possession of the present applicant and there is no legally admissible material available on record to establish the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Manish Soni @ Sushant Soni has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 12303/2025 vide order dated 17.12.2025 and another co-accused persons, namely, Lalman @ Badka, Lalji @ Kinka Basod, and Vijay Kumar Basod have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.02.2025 and 10.12.2024 in MCRC Nos. 3441/2025 and 8641/2024 respectively. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 07.08.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 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 offence, the fact that though the present applicant and other co-accused had committed theft of gold and silver ornaments, along with cash of Rs. 5,000/-, amounting in total 4 to approximately Rs. 9,00,000/-, but other co-accused person, namely, Manish Soni @ Sushant Soni has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 12303/2025 vide order dated 17.12.2025 and another co-accused persons, namely, Lalman @ Badka, Lalji @ Kinka Basod, and Vijay Kumar Basod have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.02.2025 and 10.12.2024 in MCRC Nos. 3441/2025 and 8641/2024 respectively, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and he is jail since 07.08.2025, the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, hence, 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 of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Ramlallu @ Lallu Basod, involved in Crime No. 272/2024 registered at Police Station- Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 413 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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. 5 (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 sufÏcient 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. (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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce 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 Rahul Dewangan