1 2026:CGHC:24663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4992 of 2026 Mukesh Kumar Nirmalkar @ Mukku S/o Lakhanlal Nirmalkar, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Teacher Colony P. S. Rajhara, District Balod (C.G.) (Complete Details Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order Details Taken From Charge Sheet) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station Balod, District Balod, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocat. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18/06/2026 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. 527/2025 registered at Police Station 2 Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 326(G), 3(5), 111, 61(2), 238 and 55 of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Devendra Sahu, President of Hamraj Party, reported that he had parked his Brezza car bearing Registration No. CG-24-W-7166 in the garage adjoining his residence on 01.12.2025 at about 6:30 PM. Shortly thereafter, his wife informed him that two unknown persons had visited their house enquiring about him. At about 6:45 PM, two unknown persons again approached the complainant while another person remained standing on a motorcycle at a distance of about 50 feet. The said persons confirmed whether the complainant was the President of Hamraj Party and a journalist, and upon receiving an affirmative response, informed him that illegal liquor was being sold in their area and sought his assistance in raising the issue through news publication and the organization. The complainant advised them to submit a written complaint, whereafter they left the place. It is further alleged that at about 9:00 PM, while the complainant was watching television with his family, he heard an unusual sound from outside his house. Upon coming out, his wife noticed that the garage was on fire and the complainant's vehicle parked therein was burning. The complainant immediately informed his neighbours and thereafter lodged a report with the police, on the basis of which the present FIR came to be registered against unknown persons. Hence, the bail application. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that all the co-accused persons, namely, Mamta Dadsena, Ashwani Kumar Sadsena, Abhishek Choure, Aniket Meshram, Shyamu Yadav, Suraj Kumar Rangari, Dhaneshwar Sahu and Mo. Faijan have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 08.01.2026, 22.01.2026, 02.02.2026, 10.02.2026, 25.02.2026, 25.02.2026, 03.03.2026 and 10.03.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 132/2026, 811/2026, 1069/2026, 1444/2026, 1051/2026, 1907/2026, 2090/2026 and 2177/2026. The applicant is in jail since 07.12.2025, the applicant has three criminal antecedents of the years 2019, 2021 and 2022 under the IPC and in all the said three cases, applicant has already been acquitted, further the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant allegedly along with other co-accused persons, was involved in setting fire to the complainant's Brezza car parked in the garage of his residence, pursuant to which the vehicle was completely burnt and damaged. The prosecution alleges that the applicant participated in the commission of the offence as part of a pre- planned act carried out by the accused persons. So far as the 4 criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has three criminal antecedents of the year 2019, 2021 and 2022 under the IPC, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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 07.12.2025, the fact that though the applicant allegedly along with other co-accused persons, was involved in setting fire to the complainant's Brezza car parked in the garage of his residence, pursuant to which the vehicle was completely burnt and damaged, but considering the fact that all the co-accused persons, namely, Mamta Dadsena, Ashwani Kumar Sadsena, Abhishek Choure, Aniket Meshram, Shyamu Yadav, Suraj Kumar Rangari, Dhaneshwar Sahu and Mo. Faijan have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 08.01.2026, 22.01.2026, 02.02.2026, 10.02.2026, 25.02.2026, 25.02.2026, 03.03.2026 and 10.03.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 132/2026, 811/2026, 1069/2026, 1444/2026, 1051/2026, 1907/2026, 2090/2026 and 2177/2026, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has three criminal antecedents of the year 2019, 2021 and 2022 under the IPC, and in all the said three cases, applicant has already been acquitted, further the charge- 5 sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Mukesh Kumar Nirmalkar @ Mukku, involved in Crime No. 527/2025 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 326(G), 3(5), 111, 61(2), 238 and 55 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 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 6 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 Akhil