1 2026:CGHC:6612 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1319 of 2026 Raja Meghani S/o Mohan Lal Meghani Aged About 38 Years R/o H.N.- 452, Kashiram Nagar, P.S. Telibandha Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) (At Present - Lakhe Nagar Nearby Sudama Mandir Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. Police Station - Mujgahan Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) .. Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2026 1. This is the 9rst bail application 9led 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. 182/2025 registered at Police Station- Mujgahan Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Irfan Khan parked his two E-rickshaws in front of his house at about 11:00 p.m. on 14.08.2025, and on the following morning i.e., 15.08.2025, he found that four batteries had been stolen from both the E-rickshaws by unknown persons. On the basis of his report, the FIR was registered, and during the course of investigation the present applicant along with the co-accused persons was arrested in connection with the said o=ence. 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 applicant has never committed any o=ence and was not even aware of the registration of the present crime. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant was not mentioned in the FIR at the time of its lodging and has been subsequently added on false and baseless grounds. He also submits that the applicant has never been involved in the alleged o=ence and has been made a scapegoat in order to shield the real culprit. It is further urged that nothing has been seized from the possession of the applicant and he has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which is legally unsustainable. He further submits that the present applicant has 10 criminal antecedents which are of the years 2008, 2016, 2019, 2024 and 2025 explained in paragraph 4(a) of the bail application. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been 9led, he is in jail since 23.08.2025, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the present bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the o=ence alleged against the present applicant is serious in nature. It is contended that during the course of investigation, suDcient material has been collected indicating the involvement of the applicant along with the co-accused persons in the commission of the theft of batteries from the E-rickshaws of the complainant. He also submits that the present applicant has 10 criminal antecedents which shows that he is a habitual o=ender, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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 that though the applicant, along with co-accused has committed theft of batteries from the E-rickshaws of the complainant, and has 10 criminal antecedents which are of the years 2008, 2016, 2019, 2024 and 2025, but criminal antecedents are explained in paragraph 4(a) of the bail application, the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he is in jail since 23.08.2025, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Raja Meghani, involved in Crime No. 182/2025 registered at Police Station- Mujgahan Raipur, District- Raipur, 4 (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 9le an undertaking to the e=ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 9xed 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 9xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suDcient 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 9xed 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 9xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of 5 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without suDcient 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. ODce is directed to provide a certi9ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan