1 2026:CGHC:2585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9626 of 2025 1 - Pramod Uikey S/o Shyam Singh Uikey Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Pichchekatta, Post And Thana- Bhanupratappur, District - Utter Bastar Kanker,(C.G.) 2 - Deepak Patel S/o Teejuram Patel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Narayanpur Kukripara, Thana - Bhanupratappur, District- Utter Bastar Kanker,(C.G.) 3 - Omkar Gavde S/o Nawal Singh Gavde Aged About 23 Years Village- Gavde Para Mulla, Thana - Bhanupratappur, District- Utter Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Bhanupratappur, District - Utter Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01.2026 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 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.16 12:05:20 +0530 2 bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 184/2025 registered at Police Station Bhanupratappur, District - Utter Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2) & 3(5) of the BNS. 2. According to the prosecution, on 24.03.2025, the complainant Hemlal Kola lodged the report at P.S. Bhanupratappur, District - Utter Bastar Kanker (C.G.) on 26.10.2025 with the averment that, he received a call from an unknown number and pretended to be a sub-inspector and said that the complainant supply liquor in the Sanjay para area and one Tamesh Gavde has lodged a complainant against the complainant Hemlal kola and to settle the matter he asked for Rs. 20,000/- thereafter complainant gave the amount to unknown person. After the incident complainant asked the Tamesh Gavde about the above complaint which he denied, thereafter the complainant lodged the report against the unknown persons in P.S. Bhanupratappur. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits as the FIR itself does not mention their names and alleges that money was given to unknown persons who could not identify the applicants; the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of four days without any explanation, further indicating that the applicants are being falsely implicated; there has been no recovery from the applicants, and they have been implicated solely on the basis of memorandum statements, which are not admissible in evidence in the absence of any actual recovery or corroborative proof; moreover, the complainant’s act of paying money instead of approaching authorities 3 for legal redress raises further doubts about the prosecution story; the applicants have been in judicial custody since 27.10.2025, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. 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, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants, the fact that they have no criminal antecedents, and also considering that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and that the applicants have been in judicial custody since 27.10.2025, and further that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 7. Let the Applicants - Pramod Uikey, Deepak Patel and Omkar Gavde, involved in Crime No. 184/2025 registered at Police Station Bhanupratappur, District - Utter Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2) & 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with 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 4 court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient 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 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 them 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. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav