1 CGHC010323452026 2026:CGHC:37383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7736 of 2026 Bhishmdev S/o Ramkumar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Kurma, Dongri, P.S. And Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 368/2026, registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the o;ences punishable under Sections 303(2), 111, 309(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Sanjay Agrawal lodged a report at Police Station Sirgitti on 25.05.2026 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 alleging that during the intervening night of 19.05.2026, truck driver Mahaveer Soni had parked Truck No. CG-10-R-1066 in front of Beverage Corporation, Sirgitti, from where some unknown accused person stole 294 liters of diesel worth Rs.28,529/- by breaking open the diesel tank of the truck. On the basis of the said report, an o;ence was registered and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, co-accused Sanjay Kurre, Manishankar Kurre and Amit Bhardwaj were taken into custody and their memorandum statements were recorded. They disclosed that, along with their associates namely Shubham Kurre, Bhure Khunte, Deva Khunte, Vivek Sahu, Purushottam Yadav, Montu Khunte and Leelaram Kurre, they had committed theft of diesel by breaking open the diesel tank of the aforesaid truck. It is further alleged that when the truck driver Mahaveer Soni woke up after hearing the noise, co-accused Sanjay Kurre and Shubham Kurre threatened him by placing a large knife on his neck and made him sit inside the cabin. It is further alleged that the stolen diesel was sold to Ayush Shukla and Naresh Bharti had provided the vehicle for committing theft of diesel. During the course of investigation, another accused/applicant, Bhisham Dev Khunte @ Montu, was also taken into custody and upon interrogation, he allegedly admitted his involvement in the o;ence along with other co-accused persons. The other accused persons are still absconding and the investigation is incomplete. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime and 3 he has not committed any o;ence as alleged against him. He further submits that the facts concerning the plea of alibi squarely operate in favour of the applicant as he was neither present at the scene of the alleged incident on the date of occurrence nor has any incriminating article been recovered or seized from his possession. It is submitted that the applicant is a student of B.A. Fourth Semester and on the date of the alleged incident, after appearing in his B.A. Fourth Semester examination, he was arrested from his examination centre, Pandit Lal Bahadur Shastri Arts and Commerce College, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). He further submits that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and the implication of the applicant is subsequent. It is further submitted that the applicant has been implicated only on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Amit Bhardwaj, who has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 7569/2026 with whom the applicant has a land dispute, and therefore, owing to the said dispute, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that nothing incriminating has been seized from the possession of the applicant. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has three criminal antecedents, which have been duly explained in the bail application in Part-D relating to criminal antecedents. He further submits that although co-accused Manishankar Kurre has been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7425/2026 vide order dated 12.08.2026 and he was also having criminal antecedents, the number of criminal antecedents of the present applicant is similar to 4 that of the said co-accused. Therefore, the case of the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused Manishankar Kurre. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that one of the co- accused, namely, Sanjay Kurre, has already been denied bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7677/2026 vide order dated 19.08.2026 on the ground of his criminal antecedents, which are eight in number, including two cases relating to organized crime. He further submits that the present applicant has three criminal antecedents and all the said cases are still pending. He submits that although the applicant is claiming parity with co-accused Manishankar Kurre but looking to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, parity cannot be granted to him and he is a habitual o;ender. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of 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, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and further considering that the bail application of co-accused Sanjay Kurre has been rejected by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7677/2026 vide order dated 19.08.2026, who was having eight criminal antecedents, including two cases relating to organized crime, this Court Cnds that the case of the present applicant stands on a better footing than that of the said co-accused, as the present applicant has only three criminal antecedents, which have been explained in 5 the bail application and are pending by granting bail in all cases. Further considering that co-accused Manishankar Kurre has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7425/2026 vide order dated 12.08.2026 and the said co-accused was also having criminal antecedents, which were lesser in number than those of co-accused Sanjay Kurre and the case of the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused Manishankar Kurre, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Bhishmdev, involved in Crime No. 368/2026, registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the o;ences punishable under Sections 303(2), 111, 309(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 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 Cle an undertaking to the e;ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates Cxed 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 Cxed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suDcient 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 6 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 Cxed 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 Cxed 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 suDcient 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. 10. ODce is directed to send a certiCed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal