1 2026:CGHC:25200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5410 of 2026 Pintu Aatma Ram Sarva S/o Aatmaram Sarva Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Belenagar, Behind Petrol Pump, Nagpur Maharashtra ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Khamhardih, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.06.2026 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- 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at the concerned police station alleging, inter alia, that on the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 date of the incident, certain unknown persons forcibly entered his house and, at gunpoint, committed robbery of cash amounting to Rs. 66,25,000/- along with gold ornaments, and thereafter fled from the spot. On the basis of the said report, the police registered an offence under Sections 310(2), 331(5), 123, 351(3), 61(2), 168 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the present applicant came to be implicated and was arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime on the basis of a memorandum statement and other material collected by the investigating agency. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the name of the applicant does not find place therein. The applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of a memorandum statement and no direct evidence connecting him with the alleged offence has been collected during investigation. It is further submitted that no looted cash, gold ornaments, weapon or any other incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Purushottam Dewangan, Kamlesh Verma and Manuraj Mourya have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 14.05.2026, 13.05.2026 and 07.05.2026 in MCRC Nos. 4569/2026, 4491/2026 and 4238/2026 respectively. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal 3 antecedents and he is in jail since 14.02.2025, 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 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, the fact that though the present applicant and other co-accused persons were committed robbery of cash amounting to Rs. 66,25,000/- along with gold ornaments, but other co-accused persons, namely, Purushottam Dewangan, Kamlesh Verma and Manuraj Mourya have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 14.05.2026, 13.05.2026 and 07.05.2026 in MCRC Nos. 4569/2026, 4491/2026 and 4238/2026 respectively, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, the present applicant has not previous criminal antecedents and he is jail since 14.02.2025, the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail 4 in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Pintu Aatma Ram Sarva, 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 5 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. 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