1 CGHC010260012026 2026:CGHC:29675 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6270 of 2026 Hem Lal Ghritlehre S/o Domar Ghritlehre Aged About 33 Years (Wrongly Not Mentioned In The Cause Title Of Impugned Order), R/o Paraswani, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Tilda Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2026 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. 168/2026 registered at Police Station – Tilda Neora, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 324(4), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 136 & 139 of the Electricity Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.14 16:15:21 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Junior Engineer of CSPDCL lodged a complaint alleging that some unknown persons had stolen 17 PCC poles, 10 stay units, 3,200 metres of 30 sq. mm ASR conductor, 30 metres of 70 sq. mm LT AB cable, and had also damaged certain electrical equipment, causing a loss of Rs. 1,80,582/-. During the course of investigation, the present applicant, along with the co-accused persons, was apprehended. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is submitted that the allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated and that he has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which by itself is not sufficient to connect him with the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR, there is no direct allegation against him, and no material has been collected during the investigation to establish his involvement in the alleged incident. It is also submitted that the applicant was apprehended nearly six months after the incident only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co- accused. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has already been granted bail in another criminal case, and therefore there is no apprehension of his misusing the liberty of bail. It is contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Village Paraswani, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.), there is no likelihood of his absconding, he is ready to furnish adequate surety, and he 3 undertakes to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 24.04.2026, and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Hem Lal Ghritlehre, involved in Crime No. 168/2026 registered at Police Station – Tilda Neora, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 324(4), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 136 & 139 of the Electricity Act, be released on bail on his furnishing 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 she 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. 4 (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 her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 Vaibhav