1 2026:CGHC:24020 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4739 of 2026 Kapil Sahu S/o Dashrath Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Khale Para, Parpodi, Police Station Parpodi, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Bori, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/06/2026 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. 17/2025 registered at Police Station Bori, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 317(4), 317(5) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Mahendra Soni is a hawker who used to sell gold and silver ornaments door- to-door. On 22.02.2025, he, along with his nephew Rahul Soni, were going to sell ornaments. At about 7:00 A.M., when they KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 reached near a banyan tree, three unknown persons threw chilli powder into the eyes of Rahul Soni, who was riding the motorcycle, and snatched the bags containing the ornaments. When the complainant, Mahendra Soni, chased them, the accused persons threatened him with a knife and fled from the spot. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Mahendra Soni, an FIR was registered for the aforesaid offences and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has been arraigned as an accused solely on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons and no direct evidence connecting him with the alleged offence is available on record. It is further submitted that the motorcycle seized during the investigation belongs to the applicant and he is its lawful owner. He also points out that the bills relating to the alleged stolen ornaments, filed along with the charge-sheet, are not in the name of the complainant and do not contain any specific description of the ornaments. It is further submitted that a total of seven accused persons are involved in the present case. Out of them, co-accused Anup Samant @ Sanjay has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 943/2026 vide order dated 28.01.2026, while the remaining co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. The applicant is in custody since 17.11.2025 and so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has four criminal 3 antecedents and are still pending as the same has been explained in the bail application of para No.4(A) and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, on the ground of parity and prolonged incarceration, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and there is sufficient material available on record against the present applicant. He further submits that the applicant is having four criminal antecedents, all of which are still pending, as explained in Paragraph No. 4(A) of the bail application. Looking to the criminal history of the applicant, it is contended that he is a habitual offender and, therefore, does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail. However, learned State Counsel fairly submits that out of the total seven accused persons involved in the present case, co-accused Anup Samant @ Sanjay has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 943/2026 vide order dated 28.01.2026 and the remaining co-accused persons have also been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court. However, he submits that considering the criminal antecedents of the present applicant, his case stands on a different footing and he is not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the present bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, the period of detention of the applicant since 06.10.2025, the fact that out of the total seven accused persons involved in the present case, co-accused Anup Samant @ Sanjay has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 943/2026 vide order dated 28.01.2026 and the remaining co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court, the fact that the charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion and also considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant as explained in para 4(a) of the bail application, thus without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Kapil Sahu, involved in Crime No. 17/2025 registered at Police Station Bori, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 317(4), 317(5) of BNS., 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 5 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. (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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal.