1 / 3 2026:CGHC:22020 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4361 of 2026 • Himanshu Banjare S/o Satish Banjare Aged About 28 Years R/o Mandir Hasoud Kurud, Police Station Mandir Hasoud, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, City Kotwali, Balodabazar District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 11/05/2026 1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 865/2024 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District Baloda-Bazar (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 61(2) 103(1), 238 of B.N.S. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 19.11.2024 a dead body was seen by one Vinod Bhardwaj, who informed this to concerned police station. Based upon which, police reached on spot and thereafter registered the crime against unknown persons. During investigation, applicant was also arrested on 20.11.2024. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA Date: 2026.05.12 10:47:47 +0530 2 / 3 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant was interrogated by the police only because he was driver of co-accused Nisha and therefore he was arrested. He contended that during course of investigation, police based on the memorandum statement has seized one car and one mobile phone. Except the two seizure, no other incriminating articles sized from possession of applicant. He also contended that co-accused Nisha was enlarged on bail in MCRC No. 1463/2026 vide order dated 13.02.2026 and case of applicant is on better footing. He also pointed out that other co-accused namely Tapasya Kinnar was also enlarged on bail in MCRC No. 6542 of 2025 vide order dated 10.09.2025. Seizure and memorandum witnesses, PW-3 Deepak Mahanand and PW-4, Suresh Mahanand, have not supported case of prosecution. Applicant is in jail since 20.11.2024, trial may take some time, hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that in the memorandum statement, it has come that applicant hired two persons for committing the offence. He also pointed out that according to call details, applicant was in continuous contact with co-accused Nisha before the incident. He however does not dispute submission of learned counsel for applicant that present applicant was driver of co-accused Nisha. He would submit that the submission of learned counsel for applicant based on deposition of seizure and memorandum witnesses is subject matter of appreciation by the trial Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties, further that two other co-accused persons, Nisha and Tapasya, were enlarged on bail in MCRC No. 1463/2026 and MCRC No. 6542 of 2025, as also period of pre-trial detention, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application. 3 / 3 7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) 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. (d) 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/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE