1 2026:CGHC:25383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5424 of 2026 Neeraj Kumar Singh S/o Rajkumar Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Parsagudi Ravnakheta Police Station Rajpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Police Station Rajpur District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Dr. Prachi Diwan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/06/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 232/2025 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305 of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 17.10.2025 at about 04:00 A.M., the complainant/complainant's mother namely Bechni Bai woke up from sleep and allegedly noticed a person running out of her house. Upon seeing him, she raised an alarm by shouting "thief, thief", KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 whereupon her son Ravi and other villagers reached the spot, chased the said person and apprehended him in a nearby field. On being questioned, the said person disclosed his name as Neeraj, the present applicant. Thereafter, when the complainant checked inside her house, she found that the cupboard was lying open and cash amounting to Rs.4,500/- along with a nose ring worth Rs.1,000/- was found missing. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against the present applicant for the aforesaid offence on the basis of his memorandum statement and thereafter, he has been arrested and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. He further submits that the name of the present applicant surfaced only during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted and the complainant has not properly identified the applicant as the alleged offender. It is also submitted that no stolen property or any other incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The alleged stolen property is of a meagre value of approximately Rs.5,500/- only and there is no direct or independent evidence connecting the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence. The applicant was apprehended merely on suspicion. The applicant is in judicial 3 custody since 17.10.2025 and the applicant has two criminal antecedents as explained in the bail application of para No.4(A) and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that a cash amount of Rs.500/- along with the stolen locket and jhumka have been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. It is further submitted that, so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has two criminal antecedents of similar nature. Out of the said antecedents, in one case the applicant has been acquitted, whereas in the other case, he is presently on bail. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the recovery effected from the possession of the applicant and his criminal antecedents, learned counsel for the State prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that the alleged stolen property is of a small value and that the applicant is in custody since 17.10.2025, coupled with the fact that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, therefore, further custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary. Considering the period of detention of the applicant and the fact that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, thus 4 without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Neeraj Kumar Singh, involved in Crime No. 232/2025 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305 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 5 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.diurt fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal