1 CGHC010265082026 2026:CGHC:30938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6522 of 2026 Mused Khan S/o Hanif Khan Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bamni, P S Jurhera, District Bharatpur Rajasthan ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2026 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. 156/2025 registered at Police Station- Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Vinod Kumar Dhritlahare, lodged a written report at Police Station Kawardha RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 alleging that during the intervening night of 13.04.2025, his dump truck bearing registration No. CG-04-MQ-7477, which had been parked behind Holy Cross School, Kawardha, was stolen by unknown persons. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered against unknown accused persons and investigation was set in motion. During the course of investigation, the police analyzed CCTV footage collected from various locations and obtained information through technical surveillance, including CDRs and tower location details. Acting upon the information so gathered, the police established checkpoints to trace the stolen vehicle. It is alleged that during the checking, the stolen dump truck was noticed being driven at a high speed and, despite being signaled to stop, the driver attempted to flee. Subsequently, the vehicle was abandoned near a field, whereupon the police apprehended accused persons Mohammad Umer Khan and Mohammad Mused. During interrogation, the said accused persons allegedly made memorandum statements disclosing that they, along with their associates, namely Raunak, Mohammad Samim and Mohammad Jameel (the present applicant), had committed the theft of the aforesaid dump truck. On the basis of the memorandum statements and other material collected during investigation, the present offence came to be registered against the applicant, who was thereafter arrested in connection with the case. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is 3 contended that no overt act has been attributed to the applicant and that his implication is based solely on the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons. He further submits that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and, although CCTV cameras were installed near the place of occurrence, none of the accused persons could be identified from the footage, as the persons involved had allegedly concealed their faces with masks. It is submitted that no stolen property has been recovered or seized from the possession of the applicant and no independent incriminating material has been collected during the investigation to connect him with the alleged offence. The entire prosecution case against the applicant rests upon the memorandum statements of the co-accused and the consequential seizure proceedings, which are matters to be tested during trial. He further submits that one of the co-accused persons, namely Mohammad Sameem @ Chhota Kala, against whom similar allegations have been levelled, has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 9763/2025 vide order dated 03.12.2025 and, therefore, the present applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. It is also submitted that another co-accused, namely Mohammad Ujer Khan @ Ujji, has been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in connection with his criminal antecedents in MCRC Nos. 1400/2026, 893/2026 and 2207/2026 vide common order dated 10.04.2026. He also submits that the present applicant has three criminal antecedents, namely Crime No. 165/2025 registered at Police Station Kawardha for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 112 of the BNS, 4 Crime No. 20/2025 registered at Police Station Kawardha for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 311 of the BNS, and Crime No. 370/2025 registered at Police Station Khamtarai for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, however, it is submitted that the applicant is on bail or is seeking appropriate relief in the said matters and the mere pendency of those cases cannot be a ground to deny bail in the present case. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 24.04.2025, 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 present bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is specifically implicated in the commission of a serious offence involving the theft of a heavy vehicle and that sufficient material has been collected during the course of investigation connecting him with the crime. It is submitted that the involvement of the applicant has surfaced during the investigation and on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, which led to the discovery of relevant facts. He further submits that the applicant is a habitual offender and has three criminal antecedents to his credit, namely Crime No. 165/2025 and Crime No. 20/2025 registered at Police Station Kawardha, and Crime No. 370/2025 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, which reflect his criminal propensity. Considering the nature of allegations, the criminal antecedents of the applicant, and the possibility of his indulging in 5 similar activities if released on bail, 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. Considering the nature of allegations, the material available on record, the fact that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, the evidence against the applicant is primarily based upon the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, the evidentiary value of which shall be examined during trial. This Court also takes note of the fact that a co-accused, namely Mohammad Sameem @ Chhota Kala, against whom similar allegations have been levelled and whose role arises out of the same set of facts and circumstances, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 9763/2025 vide order dated 03.12.2025 and another co- accused, namely Mohammad Ujer Khan @ Ujji, has been granted bail by this Court in connection with his criminal antecedents in MCRC Nos. 1400/2026, 893/2026 and 2207/2026 vide common order dated 10.04.2026. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, he has three criminal antecedents which are explained in this bail application. Further the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he is in jail since 24.04.2025, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this 6 case on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Applicant – Mused Khan, involved in Crime No. 156/2025 registered at Police Station- Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on 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 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 7 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan