1 CGHC010124102026 2026:CGHC:28452 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3840 of 2026 Shubhash Ragde S/o Shiv Ragde Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Sanjay Nagar Akaltara P.S. Akaltara, Civil, Revenue And District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, P.S. Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/07/2026 1 This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 16.09.2025 in connection with Crime No. 457/2025, registered at Police Station – Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A), 62, 324(4), 112, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS). 2 2 Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/informant, Sumit Patnaik, appeared at Police Station Akaltara on 16.09.2025 and lodged a report stating that, during the night of 15.09.2025, three to four masked persons entered the ATM of the complainant's Bank situated on the Akaltara Main Road and attempted to steal money by breaking open the ATM with a crowbar. On the basis of the said report, the offence was taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the memorandum statements of the accused, Afroz Khan and the applicant-Subhash Ragde, wherein they admitted to the commission of the offence. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident. Even according to the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution, only three to four masked persons are seen entering the ATM premises, and there is no material on record to establish the identity of the applicant or connect him with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that no money was stolen from the ATM and, at best, the allegations disclose an act of causing damage to the bank's property. Learned counsel further submits that although the applicant has four criminal antecedents, two of those cases have already been disposed of and the remaining two are still pending trial. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 16.09.2025. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed; therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant is involved in a serious and well- 3 planned offence involving an attempt to commit theft by breaking into an ATM after causing damage to the bank's property during the night hours. It is contended that during the course of investigation, the applicant was identified as one of the participants in the crime and his involvement is supported by the memorandum statement recorded during investigation as well as other material collected by the investigating agency. It is further submitted that the applicant is not a first-time offender and has four criminal antecedents, which indicate his propensity to commit offences. Considering the gravity and manner of commission of the offence, coupled with the applicant's criminal antecedents, there is every likelihood of his influencing witnesses or indulging in similar criminal activities if released on bail. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5 Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case rests substantially on the memorandum statements recorded during investigation. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The CCTV footage, as noticed by the prosecution itself, only shows three to four masked persons entering the ATM premises and does not prima facie establish the identity of the applicant. It is also not in dispute that no money could actually be stolen from the ATM. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 16.09.2025. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, his further custodial interrogation is not required. Though the applicant has four criminal antecedents, it has been submitted that two of the said cases have already been disposed of and the remaining two are pending trial. At this stage, criminal antecedents alone cannot be treated as conclusive to deny the benefit of bail, particularly when the trial is likely 4 to take considerable time for its conclusion. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of the evidence collected during investigation, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of regular bail. 6 Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 7 Let the applicant – Shubhash Ragde involved in connection with Crime No. 457/2025, registered at Police Station – Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa, for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A), 62, 324(4), 112, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 his 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 5 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. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.07.10 11:24:05 +0530