1 CGHC010172602026 2026:CGHC:29980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4048 of 2026 1 - Avinash Kumar @ Sanni Yadav Son Of Randhit Yadav Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Nayatola, Jurab Ganj Ward No.01, P.S. Konda, District- Katihar (Bihar) 2 - Deepak Kumar Yadav Son Of Jeevanlal Yadav Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Nayatola, Jurab Ganj Ward No.01, P.S. Konda, District- Katihar (Bihar) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Ashok Dixit, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2026 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 61/2026, registered at Police Station – Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(1) and 3(5) of the of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at the concerned police station alleging that on the date of the incident, while he was proceeding on his bicycle carrying a bag containing cash amounting to Rs.2,50,000/-, two unknown persons intercepted him on the way, abused him in filthy language, and forcibly snatched the bag containing the cash. It is alleged that after committing the said act, the assailants fled from the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police registered an offence under Sections 309(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the present applicant came to be implicated and was subsequently arrested on the basis of a memorandum statement and other material collected during the investigation. Accordingly, the applicant has been arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons and the names of the present applicants do not find place in the First Information Report. The applicants have been implicated subsequently during the course of investigation primarily on the basis of memorandum statements, which, by themselves, do not constitute substantive evidence for establishing their involvement in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that no test identification parade was conducted and there is no direct, reliable, or independent evidence connecting 3 the applicants with the alleged incident of robbery. He contends that the prosecution has failed to collect sufficient material to establish that the applicants participated in the commission of the alleged offence or were involved in the looting of the cash amount. It is also submitted that the allegations against the applicants are based merely on suspicion and conjectures, and no incriminating material has been recovered from their possession so as to conclusively link them with the crime. He further submits that, though there are a total of six criminal antecedents attributed to the applicants, out of which three cases are listed before this Court today, the same cannot be treated as conclusive proof of their involvement in the present offence and each case has to be considered on its own merits. It is further submitted that the applicants have been unnecessarily implicated in a false and fabricated case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicants are in jail since 19.02.2026 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicants and submits that the charge- sheet has already been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the present case pertains to a serious offence of robbery involving an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, sufficient material was collected indicating the involvement of the 4 present applicants in the commission of the offence. The applicants were implicated not merely on the basis of memorandum statements but also on the basis of recoveries effected pursuant thereto. It is pointed out that a cash amount of Rs.5,000/- was recovered from the possession of Applicant No. 1 and a cash amount of Rs.5,500/- was recovered from the possession of Applicant No. 2, which corroborates the prosecution case and connects the applicants with the alleged crime. She further submits that the investigation has revealed the active participation of the applicants in the incident and the offences alleged against them are grave in nature. It is also pointed out that the applicants have six criminal antecedents, out of which three cases are listed before this Court today, which reflects their continued involvement in criminal activities. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the recoveries made from the applicants, their criminal antecedents, and the material collected during investigation, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the material available on record, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further the fact that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the present applicants were subsequently implicated during the course of investigation. It is also not in dispute that an amount of Rs.5,000/- 5 was recovered from Applicant No. 1 and Rs.5,500/- was recovered from Applicant No. 2 as against the alleged looted amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. Further the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and applicants are in jail since 19.02.2026, and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion. Further considering that though there are a total of six criminal antecedents of the applicants, out of which three cases are listed before this Court today, considering that this Court is also allowing the bail applications filed by the applicants in the matters bearing M.Cr.C. No. 6174/2026 and M.Cr.C. No. 6279/2026, and without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the Applicants – Avinash Kumar @ Sanni Yadav and Deepak Kumar Yadav involved in Crime No. 61/2026, registered at Police Station – Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(1) and 3(5) of the of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 6 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 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 Rahul Dewangan