1 2026:CGHC:6383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1222 of 2026 1. Kunal Sahu S/o Genduram Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Devpuri, PS Tikrapara, Raipur, Tehsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Vinod Nishad S/o Late Raju Nishad Aged About 19 Years R/o Tarpongi, PS Nandghat, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Ps Mujgahan, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State. : Mr. Shailaendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.02.2026 1. This is the 8rst bail application 8led 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. 269/2025 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the o;ences punishable under Section 309(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS). 2. As per the prosecution case, on 01.12.2025, two unknown persons came to a petrol pump for refuelling their vehicle, namely an Activa. After ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.05 12:56:00 +0530 2 refuelling, the said two unknown persons allegedly entered the petrol pump cabin and looted the complainant’s Realme MI mobile phone, a sum of Rs. 8,200/- from the cash register, and the complainant’s personal cash amounting to Rs. 5,850/-. Thereafter, they broke the glass doors, which in the meantime had been bolted by the complainant, and >ed from the spot. Upon the complaint, the police of Police Station Mujgahan, Raipur (C.G.), registered an FIR against the unknown persons under Section 309(4) of the BNS, 2025, and initiated the investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the foresaid case. He submits that the applicants have been arrested merely on the basis of suspicion, without any substantive evidence, and the applicants have no criminal antecedents; therefore, they deserve to be considered for being enlarged on bail. He also submits that the police authorities have seized a TVS motorcycle and an OPPO smartphone from Applicant No. 1; however, as per their own case, the unknown accused persons arrived at the place of incident on an Activa motorcycle and allegedly stole a Realme MI smartphone. Thus, the police authorities have seized articles which have no connection whatsoever with the present case. He further submits that the police authorities have seized an Apple iPhone from applicant No. 2; however, as per their own case, there is no complaint regarding the loss of an I Phone in the bare contents of the FIR. All such seizures clearly indicate that the same are an afterthought, made with an intention to falsely strengthen the prosecution case against the applicants, and in light of such mischief, the applicants deserve to be considered for being enlarged on bail. He also submits that the applicants are in jail since 06.12.2025, conclusion of the trial may take 3 some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail. 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 8led before the competent Court in the present case. She further submits that the applicants are alleged to have committed a robbery at a petrol pump. She also submits that although applicant No. 1 has no criminal antecedents, applicant No. 2 has one criminal antecedent under the IPC, therefore, they are not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that although applicant No. 1 has no criminal antecedents, applicant No. 2 has one criminal antecedent under the IPC. Also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and the applicants have been languishing in jail since 06.12.2025, and conclusion of the trial may takes some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Kunal Sahu and Vinod Nishad, involved in Crime No. 269/2025 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the o;ences punishable under Section 309(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall 8le an undertaking to the e;ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 8xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in 4 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 8xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without suEcient 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 8xed 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 8xed 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 suEcient 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. OEce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek