1 CGHC010195412026 2026:CGHC:28588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4658 of 2026 1. Kailash Mahant S/o Punidas Mahant Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chitwaahi, P.S. Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Sunil Yadav S/o Meghnath Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Chitwaahi, P.S. Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O. P.S. Tamnar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Priyanshu Ojha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 48/2026 registered at Police Station - Tamnar, District - Raigarh (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 309(6) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution's case in brief is that the complainant, namely Mukesh Yadav, vide a written complaint dated 03/03/2026, submitted before the police authorities of Police Station Tamnar, alleged that while he was ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.10 11:02:22 +0530 2 sleeping in his Hiva vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-10-BK-9082, which was parked at Bhalumuda Railway Siding, during the intervening night of 02/03/2026 and 03/03/2026, between 3:00 a.m. and 3:30 a.m., three unknown persons allegedly stole approximately 175 litres of diesel from the parked vehicles, assaulted him with a stick, and robbed him of Rs. 500/-. It was further alleged that the said unknown persons fled from the spot in a white Scorpio vehicle after committing the alleged offence. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint, the police authorities of Police Station Tamnar registered FIR No. 0048/2026 for offences punishable under Sections 309(6) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons, and the names of the present applicants do not find place anywhere in the FIR. No specific role, overt act, or identification has been attributed to the present applicants in the complaint lodged by the complainant. He further submits that the allegations made in the FIR are general in nature and are not directed against any specific person. He further submits that the alleged incident is stated to have taken place between 3:00 a.m. and 3:30 a.m. during the night hours. However, there is no statement of the complainant regarding the visibility conditions at the place of occurrence. In the absence of any such assertion, and considering the odd hours of the night, it is highly improbable that the complainant could have clearly seen or correctly identified the present applicants. Therefore, the alleged identification of the present applicants in connection with the offence is doubtful and cannot be accepted with certainty. He also submits that, with regard to the criminal antecedents of 3 the applicants, an affidavit has been filed explaining the same. It is stated therein that applicant No. 1 has only one criminal antecedent under the IPC, which is presently pending at the stage of prosecution evidence, whereas applicant No. 2 has four criminal antecedents under the IPC and two cases of Istagasa. The explanations regarding all the criminal antecedents have already been furnished in the affidavit annexed with the present bail application. He further submits that the applicants have been in judicial custody since 04.03.2026, and as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, they deserve to be enlarged on regular bail. Accordingly, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application filed by the present applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court in the present case. She further submits that, in view of the criminal antecedents of the applicants, they are not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that although applicant No. 1 has 01 criminal antecedent under the IPC and applicant No. 2 has 04 criminal antecedents under the IPC and two cases under Istagasa, the said cases are old and stale. Further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court in the present case, the applicants have been in judicial custody since 04.03.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicants – Kailash Mahant and Sunil Yadav, involved in 4 Crime No. 48/2026 registered at Police Station - Tamnar, District - Raigarh (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 309(6) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing 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 them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such 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 5 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek