1 2026:CGHC:12174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2353 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar Ramteke S/o Shri Rajendra Ramteke Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Gram Chhurripara, Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House O2cer, Police Station City Kotwali, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13/03/2026 1. This is the 9rst bail application 9led 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. 327/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), for the o<ence punishable under Sections 204(2), 319(2), 331(3), 61(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.11.2025 at about 11:30 A.M., the complainant, Dr. Dilip Rathod, resident of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari, submitted a written report at Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, alleging that 6-7 unknown persons entered his residence while he was having breakfast and represented themselves to be o2cers of the Income Tax Department. It is alleged that the said persons, without producing any valid search warrant or authorization, conducted a search of the entire house, including drawers, cupboards and other household articles. During the course of the alleged incident, they took possession of the mobile phones of the complainant, his family members and sta< members and did not permit them to contact anyone or leave the premises According to the prosecution, when the complainant demanded to see the search warrant, the said persons failed to produce any lawful document and only showed a suspicious identity card. The alleged accused persons remained inside the house for approximately one and a half to two hours and thereafter left in two cars stating that nothing was found. The prosecution further states that no physical injury was caused to any person and no cash, jewellery, or valuables were taken away. On the basis of the written complaint, above o<ence has been registered against unknown persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused namely Jitendra Baghel has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 2228/2026, vide order dated 10.03.2026 and the applicant is in jail since 17.12.2025 and the conclusion of the trials is likely to take some time therefore, 3 he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicant, submit that the charge-sheet has been 9led before the competent Court and the trial is currently in progress. He further concur with the submission made on behalf of the applicant to the e<ect that the principle of parity may be considered, however, he contend that the serious nature of the o<ences, the ongoing investigation and the possibility of inBuencing witnesses weigh against granting bail to the applicant at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 17.12.2025 and further the fact that similarly situated co-accused namely Jitendra Baghel has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 2228/2026, vide order dated 10.03.2026 and the applicant is in jail since 17.12.2025 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and further the applicant has no criminal antecedent thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Sanjay Kumar Ramteke, involved in Crime No. 327/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), for the o<ence punishable under Sections 204(2), 319(2), 331(3), 61(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S., be released on bail on his 4 furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 9le an undertaking to the e<ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 9xed 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 9xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su2cient 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 9xed 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 9xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the 5 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without su2cient 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. O2ce is directed to send a certi9ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal