1 2026:CGHC:24421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5209 of 2026 A. Som Shekhar S/o Lt. A. Kali Prasad Aged About 55 Years R/o Avanti Vihar, Vijay Nagar, Plot No. 1284, P/s Khamardih, Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO P/S Khamardih, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate appears through video conferencing For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2026 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. 42/2025 registered at Police Station- Khamardih, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2), 331(5), 123, 351(3), 61(2), 168 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant lodged a report at the concerned Police Station alleging that on the date of the incident, certain unknown persons forcibly entered his house and, while threatening the occupants with a pistol, committed robbery of cash amounting to approximately Rs.66,25,000/-, three gold chains and three old mobile phones. It is further alleged that after committing the robbery, the accused persons fled from the spot. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 42/2025 came to be registered for the aforesaid offences and, during the course of investigation, the present applicant was implicated and subsequently arrested in connection with the said crime. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against him. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Shahid Taj and Manuraj Mourya have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.04.2026 and 07.05.2026 in MCRC Nos. 3512/2026 and 4238/2026 respectively. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested on 14.02.2025 in connection with the present crime and has remained in judicial custody for more than 15 months. He further submits that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is also contended that though the case is fixed for prosecution evidence, there has been no substantial progress in the trial and the same is likely to take considerable time 3 for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 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, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 14.02.2025, the fact that though the present applicant and other co-accused were committed robbery of cash amounting to approximately Rs.66,25,000/-, three gold chains and three old mobile phones and threatened the occupants with a pistol, but also considering the fact that the other co-accused persons, namely, Shahid Taj and Manuraj Mourya have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.04.2026 and 07.05.2026 in MCRC Nos. 3512/2026 and 4238/2026 respectively, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – A. Som Shekhar, involved in Crime No. 42/2025 registered at Police Station- Khamardih, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2), 331(5), 123, 351(3), 61(2), 168 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, be released on bail on furnishing 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 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 5 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. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan