1 2026:CGHC:26641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5655 of 2026 Shivkumar Singh @ Fugga S/o Lanja Ram Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Nakla, Thakurpara, P.S. Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur (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. 584/2025 registered at Police Station - Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 305(A), 331(4), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 238, 3(5), 111 of the BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant, along with the co-accused persons, is alleged to have committed VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.01 11:05:40 +0530 2 house-breaking by breaking open the shutter of Vinayak Jewellers and committing theft of gold and silver jewellery valued at approximately Rs.4,50,000/-. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the relevant seizure memos, and arrested the accused persons. It is alleged that the involvement of the present applicant surfaced during the course of investigation, and on the basis of the material collected, including the memorandum statements of the accused persons, the investigating agency found sufficient material indicating his complicity in the commission of the alleged offence. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court against the applicant and the co-accused persons for the offences alleged. 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 no stolen property or any other incriminating material has been recovered or seized from the possession of the applicant and that the prosecution case is primarily based on the memorandum statement of the accused and the consequential seizure proceedings, the evidentiary value of which can only be examined during the course of trial. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 05.12.2025 and has undergone substantial incarceration. It is also submitted that the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is further argued that the offences alleged 3 against the applicant are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, the continued detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment. Learned counsel lastly submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the bail application, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and he is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 05.12.2025, and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Shiv Kumar Singh @ Fugga, involved in Crime No. 584/2025 registered at Police Station - Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 305(A), 331(4), 4 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 238, 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 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