1 CGHC010233492026 2026:CGHC:32119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5829 of 2026 Kanhaiya Rana S/o Nandlal Rana Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 20 Verma Para Sejbahar, Raipur, P.S. Khamhardih, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S. Khamhardih, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Prashant Dansena, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State. : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.07.2026 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 136/2026 registered at Police Station - Khamhardih, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 316(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS). 2. According to the prosecution case, an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, belonging to the family of the complainant, was being transported by the complainant’s brother-in-law, along with the driver, Krishna Sahu, and the accountant, Bhupendra Dewangan, in a vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-04/QG-6633, from Kachana, Raipur to Devpuri. It is alleged that, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.28 17:32:18 +0530 2 during the journey, driver Krishna Sahu fled away with the bag containing the said amount after leaving the accountant, Bhupendra Dewangan, behind. Significantly, it was the complainant himself who immediately lodged the report regarding the incident, on the basis of which the present crime was registered and the investigation commenced. During the course of the investigation, accused Krishna Sahu was apprehended, and his memorandum statement was recorded by the police. In the said memorandum, Krishna Sahu allegedly disclosed that he had distributed portions of the stolen amount amongst several persons, namely Bhuneshwar Sahu, Om Prakash Sahu, Vishnu Prasad Patel, Krishna Rava, and Tikam Patel. Acting upon the said disclosure, certain recoveries were allegedly effected from the possession of the said co- accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the foresaid case. He submits that there is no strong prima facie case against the applicant based on the material collected during the investigation. The applicant was not known to the complainant, the main accused, or their family members prior to the alleged incident. He submits that the applicant had no prior acquaintance, relationship, or dealings with any of them and had allegedly visited the house only as a friend of a mutual acquaintance. Therefore, the allegation of prior planning, common intention, or deliberate involvement is wholly untenable at this stage. He further submits that the name of the present applicant does not find place in the First Information Report. He has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the main accused. Apart from the said memorandum statement, there is no incriminating material or legally admissible evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. 3 He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 27.04.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, and that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and that the applicant has been languishing in judicial custody since 27.04.2026. As the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicant – Kanhaiya Rana, involved in Crime No. 136/2026 registered at Police Station - Khamhardih, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 316(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 4 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 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 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek