1 2026:CGHC:26616 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5312 of 2026 Shiv Kumar Singh @ Fugga S/o Lanja Ram Singh Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Nakna Thakur Para P.S. Sitapur District- Surguaj (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Naya Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 207/2025 registered at Police Station - Naya Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5), 111 of the BNS. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.01 11:05:40 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.09.2025 the complainant, Gautam Kumar Soni, lodged a report stating that after closing his jewellery shop, namely "Shri Krishna Jewellers & Bartan Bhandar", on the night of 01.09.2025, he returned home. On the following morning, he received information that his shop was found open. Upon reaching the shop, he noticed that the lock of the shop had been broken and various gold and silver ornaments, silver utensils, brass utensils, customers' jewellery and other articles kept inside the shop were missing. It was alleged that unknown persons had committed theft by breaking open the lock of the shop during the intervening night of 01/02.09.2025. On the basis of the said report, an offence was registered against unknown accused persons and investigation was taken up. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is contended that the applicant was not named in the FIR and has been implicated only during the course of investigation. Learned counsel further submits that there is no direct evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and that his implication is based merely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused, pursuant to which three criminal cases have been registered simultaneously against him. It is further submitted that the applicant is a poor labourer by occupation and has no criminal antecedents whatsoever. Learned counsel also submits that the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is lastly submitted that the 3 applicant is in judicial custody and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude; therefore, his continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the present applicant has two previous criminal antecedents and, therefore, is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. However, learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and that the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing as that of the said co- accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel 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 theft of gold and silver ornaments along with cash amounting to Rs. 75,000/-, but other co-accused persons, namely, Roshan Soni and Badal Das have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.02.2026 and 10.03.2026 in MCRC Nos. 221/2026 and 2252/2026 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, and he is jail since 09.11.2025, the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that 4 the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Applicant – Shiv Kumar Singh @ Fugga, involved in Crime No. 207/2025 registered at Police Station - Naya Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5), 111 of the BNS, be released on bail on his 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 his 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 5 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav