1 2026:CGHC:27245 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5862 of 2026 1. Kundan Yadav S/o Manish Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Radha Krishana Mandir Ke Pass Dumar Talab Raipur Thana Amanaka Raipur (C.G.) 2. Dhaneshwar Nirmalkar S/o Gajanand Nirmalkar Aged About 19 Years R/o Radha Krishana Mandir Ke Pass Dumar Talab Raipur Thana Amanaka Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, (S.H.O.) P.S. Amanaka Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Soni, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.07.2026 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 have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 157/2026 registered at Police Station – Amanaka District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 310(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on the intervening night of 15.06.2026 and 16.06.2026, between 03:00 A.M. and 04:00 A.M., the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.03 16:16:21 +0530 2 complainant had gone to the pickup point near Dumar Talab Chowk, Mohba Bazar, to pick up a booking. At that time, 5–6 unknown persons allegedly intercepted and surrounded him. It is alleged that two of them, while brandishing a knife, snatched the keys of his motorcycle and robbed him of his Apple Bluetooth device and the gold chain he was wearing around his neck. Thereafter, they allegedly took Rs.1,000/- from the wallet in his pocket. It is further alleged that, while threatening him with a knife, they demanded more money. Subsequently, the accused persons allegedly took the complainant along with his motorcycle to the SBI ATM at Mohba Bazar Chowk, while four of them followed on separate motorcycles. At the ATM, they allegedly threatened him with a knife, compelled him to withdraw Rs.4,000/- from his bank account, and robbed him of the said amount. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the offence in question. He also submits that the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicants are in custody since 18.05.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. He further submits that a sum of Rs. 200/- has been seized from the possession of the applicants. Hence, the applicants are not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the fact that a sum of Rs. 200/- has been seized from the possession of the applicants, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the absence of any previous criminal antecedents on the part of the applicants, and the fact that they have been in judicial custody since 18.05.2026, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 - Kundan Yadav and Dhaneshwar Nirmalkar, involved in Crime No. 157/2026 registered at Police Station – Amanaka District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 310(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such 4 proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/-- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti