1 2026:CGHC:24340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4676 of 2026 1 - Rahul Tripathi S/o Sashibhushan Tripathi Aged About 43 Years R/o Lij 95, Phase 01 Deendayal Awas Manki, Police Station Somni, District Rajnandgaon C.G. 2 - Neha Tripathi W/o Rahul Tripathi Aged About 43 Years R/o Lij 95, Phase 01 Deendayal Awas Manki, Police Station Somni, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Khamhardih, District – Raipur, C.G. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 42/2025, registered at Police Station – Khamhardih, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2), 331(5), 123, 351(3), 61(2), 168 and 238 of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 4743/2025 and 5520/2025, on merits. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The case of the prosecution, is that on 11.02.2025, the police of Khamhadih police station Raipur received information from mobile about a robbery in broad daylight in Anupam Nagar Raipur. Then the police reached the spot and questioned the complainant Manoharan Velu. Then the complainant told that applicant alongwith other accused persons entered the house and threatened to kill the complainant and his sisters Prema Velu, Rajni Velu with a pistol and looted a total of Rs. 66,25,000/- in cash and 03 gold chains weighing 06 tolas and 03 old mobiles. Hence, this application. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that though the first bail applications of the applicants were rejected by this Court on merits, but the bail applications of the co-accused persons namely, Purushottam Dewangan and Manuraj Mourya have already been allowed and they have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 14.05.2026 and 07.05.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 4569/2026 and 4238/2026. The applicants are in jail since 14.02.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicants but could not dispute the fact that the bail applications co-accused person have already been allowed and they have been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicants are identical to that of the co-accused. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and though the first bail applications of the applicants were rejected by this Court on merits, but the bail applications of the co-accused persons namely, Purushottam Dewangan and Manuraj Mourya have already been allowed and they have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 14.05.2026 and 07.05.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 4569/2026 and 4238/2026, and the applicants are in jail since 14.02.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application, on the ground of parity. 8. Let applicants, Rahul Tripathi and Neha Tripathi, involved in Crime No. 42/2025, registered at Police Station – Khamhardih, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2), 331(5), 123, 351(3), 61(2), 168 and 238 of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each 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. (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. 4 (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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar