1 2026:CGHC:27197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5818 of 2026 Uma Shankar Sharma S/o Shri Satish Sharma Aged About 29 Years R/o Durga Colony Mohana, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Janakpur, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 108/2025 registered at Police Station – Janakpur, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4) and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.06.2025, the complainant, Rakesh Soni, lodged a report at Police Station RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Janakpur stating that he is a goldsmith by profession and, along with his elder brother Bramha Soni and cousin Anil Soni, runs a jewellery shop in the local market. It is alleged that after closing the shop at about 7:00 P.M. and returning home, the complainant received a phone call informing him that his elder brother Bramha Soni and cousin Anil Soni had been intercepted by four unknown persons, who fired at them and committed robbery. Upon reaching the spot, the complainant was informed by the injured persons that the accused persons had robbed a bag belonging to Bramha Soni containing gold and silver ornaments worth approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- and cash of Rs. 15,000/-, and another bag belonging to Anil Soni containing ornaments worth approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- and cash of Rs. 4,000/-. The accused persons also allegedly took away a mobile phone worth Rs. 6,000/-. On the basis of the said report, Police Station Janakpur registered the present crime for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. During the course of investigation, the present applicant came to be implicated, was arrested in connection with the said crime, and thereafter the present bail application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is contended that the FIR was initially registered against four unknown persons and there are no reasonable grounds to prima facie hold the applicant guilty of the 3 offences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It is further submitted that at the time of the alleged incident, the applicant was at his native place, Gwalior, and was not present at the place of occurrence. He also submits that on 23.09.2025, while the applicant was called for inquiry in connection with Crime No. 334/2025 registered at Police Station Gohaparu, District Shahdol (M.P.), the photographs of the applicant were illegally forwarded by A.S.I. Bhagchand Choudhary of Police Station Gohaparu to Police Station Janakpur for the purpose of identification in the present case even before his arrest. A copy of the communication evidencing the forwarding of the photographs has been filed as Annexure A/3. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer of Police Station Janakpur showed the photographs of the applicant to the complainant and the injured witnesses before conducting the Test Identification Parade on 09.10.2025, and consequently the applicant was identified only after the witnesses had already seen his photographs. Therefore, the Test Identification Parade is rendered legally unreliable and loses its evidentiary value. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gireesan Nair and Others vs. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180, and Umesh Chandra and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2021) 17 SCC 616. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that though this Hon’ble Court has rejected the bail applications of co-accused 4 Deshraj Singh Kushwaha and Ramprakash @ Lalla in M.Cr.C. Nos. 4449/2026 and 4580/2026 vide orders dated 12.05.2026 and 14.05.2026 respectively, the case of the present applicant stands on an entirely different footing inasmuch as the said co-accused were directly identified by the complainant and the injured witnesses, whereas the present applicant was allegedly identified only after his photographs had been shown to the witnesses by the police, thereby vitiating the entire identification process. It is further submitted that the prosecution case itself is doubtful inasmuch as the memorandum statement is shown to have been recorded on 06.12.2025 at 8:00 A.M., whereas the seizure memo was prepared earlier on 05.12.2025 at 10:45 A.M., which is legally impossible and clearly demonstrates fabrication of the prosecution documents. It is also contended that no property was recovered from the house or conscious possession of the applicant and even according to the seizure memo, the alleged articles were recovered from the house of one Jai Bahadur. He further submits that the present applicant is not similarly situated with the main accused persons, namely Deshraj Singh Kushwaha and Ramprakash @ Lalla, from whose possession substantial quantities of stolen ornaments valued at Rs. 1,04,296/- and Rs. 1,07,505/- respectively were recovered. It is further submitted that in Crime No. 334/2025 registered at Police Station Gohaparu, District Shahdol (M.P.), it has been specifically shown that at the relevant time the applicant was present at Mathura-Vrindavan and, on the said facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has already granted him bail, which itself 5 indicates the falsity of the allegations levelled against him. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case as well as in Crime No. 334/2025 after he failed to accede to the illegal demands of the police officials, and to establish his innocence he has already moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Manendragarh seeking preservation and production of his call detail records and location data, which would establish that he was not present at the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that there is no legally admissible evidence to establish either the actus reus or the mens rea of the applicant, the statements of the prosecution witnesses are mechanical and interested in nature, the prosecution has failed to collect any cogent material connecting the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence, and as the applicant is in jail since 05.12.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed, no further custodial interrogation is required, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of armed robbery, punishable under Sections 309(4) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It is contended that during the course of investigation, sufficient incriminating material has been collected against the applicant, 6 including his identification by the witnesses during the Test Identification Parade, the memorandum statement, and the recovery of the stolen property pursuant to the investigation, which prima facie establishes his involvement in the commission of the offence. He further submits that the contention of the applicant regarding the validity of the Test Identification Parade and the alleged manipulation in the investigation are matters of evidence, which can only be adjudicated during the course of trial and cannot be conclusively examined at the stage of consideration of bail. It is further submitted that this Court has already rejected the bail applications of the co-accused, namely Deshraj Singh Kushwaha in M.Cr.C. No. 4449/2026 vide order dated 12.05.2026 and Ramprakash @ Lalla @ Kalli in M.Cr.C. No. 4580/2026 vide order dated 14.05.2026, after considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the role attributed to them. The present applicant is alleged to have acted in furtherance of the same criminal conspiracy and, therefore, he does not deserve a different treatment merely by raising disputed questions regarding the investigation. He also submits that the applicant has a previous criminal antecedent involving a similar offence, which is still pending trial, thereby indicating that he is a habitual offender having a propensity to commit offences of like nature. Considering the gravity of the offence involving robbery at gunpoint, the substantial value of the looted property, the prima facie material available on record, the pendency of a similar criminal case against the applicant, and the possibility of his influencing 7 witnesses or absconding if released on bail, it is prayed that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the offence was committed, the material collected during the course of investigation, and the case diary, this Court is of the considered opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. The offence alleged is one of armed robbery involving the use of firearms, wherein gold and silver ornaments worth approximately Rs. 5,00,000/-, cash amounting to Rs. 19,000/- and a mobile phone were robbed from the victims, thereby constituting a grave and serious offence. The objections raised by the applicant with regard to the validity of the Test Identification Parade, the alleged prior exposure of his photographs to the witnesses, the alleged discrepancies in the memorandum statement and seizure memo, and the fairness of the investigation involve disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of consideration of a bail application. Further considering the fact that the bail applications of the co-accused, namely Deshraj Singh Kushwaha and Ramprakash @ Lalla @ Kalli, have already been rejected by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 4449/2026 vide order dated 12.05.2026 and M.Cr.C. No. 4580/2026 vide order dated 14.05.2026, respectively, after taking into consideration the nature of the allegations and the material 8 collected during investigation. At this stage, no distinguishing circumstance of such magnitude is made out so as to warrant a different view in favour of the present applicant. Further taken into consideration the criminal antecedent of the applicant, which reveals that he is involved in another criminal case of similar nature that is still pending trial, indicating his propensity to indulge in such offences. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the prima facie material available on record, the pendency of a similar criminal case against the applicant, and the stage of the trial, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Uma Shankar Sharma, involved in Crime No. 108/2025 registered at Police Station – Janakpur, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4) and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul dewangan