1 2026:CGHC:6634 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10519 of 2025 1 - Sonu Kumar S/o Shri Mahesh Mandal @ Ballu Mandal Aged About 23 Years R/o - Mahadevvaran, Out Post Mirza, Baran Near Kali Mandir, Saheb Ganj, Jharkhand. 2 - Pintu Mohli S/o Shri Mandal Mohli Aged About 21 Years R/o - Mahadevvaran, Out Post Mirza, Baran Near Kali Mandir, Saheb Ganj, Jharkhand. ... Applicants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Gudhiyari District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 327/2025, registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the present FIR was registered at P.S. Gudhiyari concerning the theft of a mobile phone subsequent fraudulent transfer and of approximately 99,000/- from the VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.02.07 10:59:40 +0530 2 complainant's bank account on or about June 22, 2025. That the Applicants, Pintu Mohli and Sonu Mandal, have been formally arrested in connection with the said case on July 23, 2025. That the Applicants have been charged with offences including being part of an organized gang and receiving stolen money. The role attributed to them is limited to providing bank accounts to the Mahato Gang. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed and no reliable witness to the offence to prop up the allegation prosecution story, it seems that the prosecution story is based upon circumstantial evidence and is not upon directed or legal evidence. The applicants have been in judicial custody since 09.07.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Hence, the applicant prays for grant of bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that although the applicant has no criminal antecedents, pursuant to this Court’s order dated 06.01.2026, the Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit stating that during investigation it was found that the present applicants were working with an organized gang involved in stealing mobile phones. It is submitted that during the investigation, one mobile phone and Rs.10,000/- have been seized from the applicant No.1 and two mobile phones and Rs.13,000/- have been seized from applicant No.2. It is further submitted that the bail application of the main accused, namely Yasin Quraishi, has already been rejected by this Court therefore, the present applicant is also not entitled to grant of bail. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the present applicants, and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and further considering that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and one mobile phone and Rs.10,000/- have been seized from the applicant No.1 and two mobile phones and Rs.13,000/- have been seized from applicant No.2, and that they have been in judicial custody since 09.07.2025, and as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable time, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 7. 7. Accordingly, this bail application of applicant – Sonu Kumar and Pintu Mohli involved in Crime No.327/2025, registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 4 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 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 vaishali