1 2026:CGHC:26315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5649 of 2026 Chhannu Singh Dhurve S/o Gajraj Dhurve Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kouwanar Badna Police Station Kukdur District Kabirdham C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate District Kabirdham C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.06.2026 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. 10/2026 registered at Police Station- Kukdur District Kabirdham, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 309(6), 351(3) and 3(5) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 28.02.2026, the complainant, Samaru Dhurve, lodged a report at Police Station RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Kukdur, District Kabirdham (Kawardha), stating that on 19.02.2026, he had gone to Kui Bazaar where, at about 2:30 p.m., two unknown persons approached him on the pretext of requiring some assistance and requested him to drop them at Village Neur. Believing them, the complainant allowed them to ride on his Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-09-JT-7896. When they reached near Damgarh Nala on the road leading from Village Damgarh to Neur, both the persons allegedly stopped the motorcycle, assaulted the complainant, forcibly robbed him of the said motorcycle, and fled from the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Police Station Kukdur registered Crime No.10/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4), 309(6), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was arrested in connection with the aforesaid 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 without there being any credible material to connect him with the alleged offence. It is contended that the applicant has been arraigned as an accused solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which by itself has no substantive evidentiary value, and no independent incriminating material has been collected against him during the investigation. It is further submitted that no robbed article has been recovered or seized from the possession of the applicant, nor is there any material to 3 establish his involvement in the alleged incident of assault and robbery. It is also argued that the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 309(4), 309(6), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not prima facie made out against the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is a young man aged about 24 years, has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 01.03.2026, 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 before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of robbery committed after assaulting the complainant. It is contended that during the course of investigation, sufficient incriminating material has been collected against the applicant, including the memorandum of the co-accused and other corroborative evidence connecting him with the commission of the offence. She further submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave in nature and disclose his active participation in the crime. Considering the manner in which the offence was committed, the severity of the allegations, and the material available on record, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail and the present application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the material available on record, the fact that no recovery or seizure has been effected from the possession of the present applicant, the prosecution case against the applicant is primarily based on the memorandum statement of the co-accused, the principal allegation of committing the robbery is against the main accused, further the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 01.03.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Chhannu Singh Dhurve, involved in Crime No. 10/2026 registered at Police Station- Kukdur District Kabirdham, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 309(6), 351(3) and 3(5) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 5 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 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