1 CGHC010171512026 2026:CGHC:30240 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4180 of 2026 1 - Ranjeet Markam S/o Late Ramcharan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Satnami Para Khamariya, P.S. Bhathapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. ...Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P S G.R.P. Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amitesh Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Monika Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 75/2025 registered at Police Station –G.R.P. Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 305(c) of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Assistant Sub-Inspector Yogendra Prasad Ojha, who is posted with the 40th Battalion, ITBP, Ranchi, Jharkhand, lodged a written report at Police Station GRP, Bilaspur stating that on 02.09.2025, he, along with two Head Constables and three Constables, was travelling by Train No. 08185 (Hatia–Durg Express) for law and order duty at the Strategic Headquarters of the 40th Battalion, Dongargarh, Chhattisgarh. It is alleged that before the train reached Champa Railway Station, an unknown person committed theft of a carry bag containing two 9 mm pistols, twenty-four live cartridges, four empty magazines, as well as a Realme mobile phone and cash of ₹700 belonging to Head Constable Jitendra Singh. On the basis of the said written report, a First Information Report was registered at Police Station GRP, Bilaspur against an unknown person. During the course of investigation, the present applicant/accused, Ranjit Markam, came to be implicated in the crime. He was arrested on 06.09.2025 and his memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was recorded. During investigation, offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was also added. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is 3 innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the prosecution case rests primarily on the memorandum statement of the applicant, which has limited evidentiary value in law except to the extent of any admissible recovery. It is further submitted that there is no direct or independent evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and the alleged recovery is doubtful. Learned counsel submits that no independent eyewitness has supported the prosecution case despite the alleged incident having occurred in a running train carrying several passengers. It is further contended that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed; therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 07.09.2025, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence under Section 305(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act. It is contended that the stolen pistols and cartridges were recovered from the possession of the applicant pursuant to the investigation. Learned State counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and, in compliance with the directions of this High Court, the prosecution evidence has been concluded. The case is now at the stage of 4 recording the statement of the accused under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In view of the incriminating material available on record and the advanced stage of the trial, it is prayed that the application for grant of bail be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The allegations against the applicant are of a serious nature involving theft of Government-issued firearms and ammunition while in transit, which subsequently led to the addition of an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. As per the prosecution case, the stolen pistols and cartridges were recovered from the possession of the applicant during the course of investigation. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is also not in dispute that the prosecution evidence has been concluded and the case is presently at the stage of recording the statement of the accused under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, indicating that the trial has substantially progressed and is likely to reach its conclusion within a reasonable time. At this stage, this Court is not persuaded to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant regarding the evidentiary value of the memorandum statement or the alleged absence of independent witnesses as these are matters to be appreciated by the trial Court on the basis 5 of evidence led during trial. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations, the recovery allegedly effected from the applicant, the stage of the trial and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the applicant, Ranjeet Markam, in connection with Crime No. 75/2025 registered at Police Station –G.R.P. Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 305(c) of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act, deserves to be and is hereby rejected at this stage. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Ruchi