1 CGHC010262132026 2026:CGHC:31209 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6574 of 2026 Rammilan S/o Mahaveer Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Bhainapur Police Station - Kishanpur, District- Fatehpur Uttar Pradesh. … Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station- Raghunathnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2026 1. This is the Second 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. 93/2017 registered at Police Station – Raghunathnagar, District – Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant, being MCRC No. 4837 of 2025, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.06.2025. 3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant lodged a complaint at the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.23 11:32:12 +0530 2 concerned Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on the date of the incident, certain unknown persons committed robbery of 04 conductor drums (Mooj), valued at Rs. 20,44,980/-, after threatening to kill the complainant, and thereafter fled from the spot. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the present offence under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code against the unknown accused persons. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was arrested on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-accused, and was implicated in the present case. Upon completion of the investigation, the applicant was arrested in connection with the said crime. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, as the first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.06.2025 passed in MCRC No. 4837 of 2025. He further submits that the police have falsely registered the FIR against the applicant merely on the basis of suspicion, without conducting a fair and proper investigation. It is submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence whatsoever and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that no direct allegation has been levelled against the applicant, as his name does not find mention in the FIR. According to the prosecution, the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which, by itself, is insufficient to connect him with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that no stolen property or any other incriminating article has been recovered or seized from the possession of the applicant. The applicant neither participated in the alleged robbery nor was found in possession of any of the stolen articles. He has been arrested solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which is not supported by any independent corroborative evidence. Learned counsel further submits that there are 22 prosecution witnesses, out of whom only 01 prosecution witness 3 has been examined till date. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 16.04.2025, and as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and submits that the alleged incident took place in the year 2017. It is further submitted that the applicant had been absconding ever since the date of the incident and was ultimately arrested on 16.04.2025. Therefore, considering his conduct, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that though the alleged incident took place in the year 2017 and the applicant had been absconding ever since the date of the incident until his arrest on 16.04.2025, so far as the progress of the trial is concerned, only 01 out of 22 prosecution witnesses has been examined till date. Further considering that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 16.04.2025, and having regard to the prolonged period of detention already undergone by him as well as the likelihood that the conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. 8. The Second Bail Application of the Applicant – Rammilan, involved in Crime No. 93/2017 registered at Police Station – Raghunathnagar, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two heavy local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 (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 his 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 his, 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 his in accordance with law. 9. 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 Abhishek