1 CGHC010264872026 2026:CGHC:29321 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6193 of 2026 Anil Kumar S/o Rajendra Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pandeykapura, Post Munari, Police Station Choubepur, Tahsil And District Varanasi (U.P.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mahant Kumar Jayswal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13/07/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 23/2026 registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(3), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 317(2), 317(5), 61(2)(A) and 238, 3(5) of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Amit Kumar Pandey, lodged a report alleging that a consignment of 30 tons and 160 kilograms of iron rods, valued at Rs. 15,23,908/-, was dispatched from Nayanpur on 08.01.2026 for delivery to Nandi Enterprises, Bhadohi, through truck No. UP-61-AT-2832, driven by the present applicant. It is alleged that the applicant, in conspiracy with the co-accused persons, dishonestly misappropriated the consignment and caused its disappearance instead of delivering it to the consignee, thereby committing the alleged offences. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that one of the identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Manish Kumar Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2026 passed in MCRC No.5878 of 2026. The applicant is in jail since 08.06.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail 3 application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant allegedly while driving the truck carrying the iron consignment, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, dishonestly misappropriated the goods worth Rs. 15,23,908/- and caused their disappearance instead of delivering them to the consignee. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of 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, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 08.06.2026, the fact that though the applicant is alleged to have, in conspiracy with the co-accused, dishonestly misappropriated the iron consignment worth Rs. 15,23,908/- while driving the truck and caused its disappearance instead of delivering it to the consignee, but considering the fact that co- accused, namely, Manish Kumar Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2026 passed in MCRC No.5878 of 2026 and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the said co-accused, further the charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Anil Kumar, involved in Crime No. 23/2026 4 registered at Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(3), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 317(2), 317(5), 61(2)(A) and 238, 3(5) of the 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 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 5 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil