1 CGHC010148072026 2026:CGHC:27980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3513 of 2026 • Sanju Kumar Sahu Son of Mahendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years Resident of Village- Silhati, Post - Podi District-Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Takhatpur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2026 1. This is First Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.213/2023, registered at Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 392 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 5. the complainant Smt. Kumari Sahu lodged report at Police Station, Takhatpur, alleging therein that on 23.04.2023, when she was sitting in her courtyard two individuals arrived on a motorcycle, snatched her necklace and fled the scene. Based on this report, an offense under Section 392 of VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.07.08 16:09:39 +0530 2 the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered against unknown persons. During the investigation, the applicant was arrested on June 16, 2023, thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicant. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 10.11.2025. He also submits that the bail application filed by other co-accused namely, Naresh Pandey has already been allowed by this Court in MCRC No.1886 of 2025 vide order dated 07.03.2025, copy of the same is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/3, therefore the present applicant is also entitle for bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that bail application filed by other co-accused namely, Naresh Pandey has already been allowed by this Court in MCRC No.1886 of 2025 vide order dated 07.03.2025. She also submits that the applicant has ten criminal antecedents, and details of the eight antecedents are mentioned in the bail application, it appears that applicant is a habitual offender, therefore he is not entitled for grant 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, allegation levelled against the applicant, further considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 10.11.2025, further the bail application filed by other co-accused namely, Naresh Pandey has already been allowed by this Court in MCRC No.1886 of 2025 vide 3 order dated 07.03.2025, hence this Court is of the considered view that, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Sanju Kumar Sahu, involved in Crime No..213/2023, registered at Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 392 of Indian Penal Code, 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 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 her absence, without sufficient 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 4 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