1 CGHC010310122026 2026:CGHC:36002 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.7483 of 2026 1 - Bhupendra Kumar Rangari S/o Late Shri Gautam Rangari, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Korramtola Police Station And Tehsil Mohla, District Mohla, Manpur Ambagarh Chowki C.G. 2 - Hemant Sinha S/o Dhaalsingh Sinha Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Korramtola Police Station And Tehsil Mohla, District Mohla, Manpur Ambagarh Chowki C.G. ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Ravghat, District North Bastar Kanker C. G. ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicants :Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. The Applicants have preferred this 1st Bail Application under SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.14 11:15:58 +0530 2 Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.03/2026 registered at Police Station – Ravghat, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 303(2), 3(5), 306, 317(2), 334(2), 111(6) and 111(7) of BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused Rajesh Yadav, while working with Jio Company, along with the present Applicants and co-accused Makhan Tumreki, Devraj Baghel, Eli Masih, formed a common intention to commit theft of batteries installed for operating the Jio Company tower at Village Varche. In furtherance of the said common intention, between 28.03.2026 and 15.04.2026, they allegedly committed theft of 72 batteries worth approximately Rs.1,50,000/-. As per the memorandum statements of the Applicants, they, while working as riggers in the Durgukondal and Manpur areas of Jio Company, went along with co- accused Eli Masih in his Venue car to the Jio tower at Village Varche for committing the theft. Thereafter, co-accused Devraj Baghel, along with the present Applicants, allegedly cut the locks of three racks using a saw and other tools, whereafter all the accused persons removed 72 batteries from the racks and loaded them into the pickup vehicle of co- 3 accused Makhan Tumreki. The said batteries were allegedly taken to Dalirajhara and sold to co-accused Rajesh Netam, and the proceeds were thereafter distributed amongst the accused persons. It is further alleged that the Applicants, along with the other accused persons, had similarly committed theft of 72 batteries each from Jio towers falling within their respective areas on different occasions and had handed over the stolen batteries to co-accused Devraj Baghel, Makhan Tumreki and Rajesh Netam for sale. On the basis of the investigation conducted in the matter, the present Applicants were arrested for their alleged involvement in the commission of the aforesaid offences. Hence this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are innocent, have been falsely implicated in the present case and are in jail since 08.06.2026. He further submits that there is an unexplained delay of about three days in lodging the FIR, as the alleged theft was within the knowledge of the complainant on or before 15.04.2026, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 18.04.2026 and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for such delay. It is further submitted that no incriminating article or stolen property has been seized or recovered from the conscious 4 and exclusive possession of the Applicants and there is no independent recovery connecting them with the alleged offence. He lastly submits that co-accused Rajesh Netam and Rajesh Yadav have already been granted bail vide order dated 21.07.2026 passed in MCRC Nos.5438/2026 and 5880/2026 respectively and therefore, the present Applicants are also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there are no previous criminal antecedents against the present Applicants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature of allegations, the period of custody of the Applicants since 08.06.2026, the fact that no incriminating article or stolen property has been seized or recovered from their possession, the fact that co-accused Rajesh Netam and Rajesh Yadav have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2026 passed in MCRC Nos.5438/2026 and 5880/2026 respectively, there are no previous criminal antecedents against the Applicants and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, 5 without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let Applicants- Bhupendra Kumar Rangari and Hemant Sinha involved in Crime No.03/2026 registered at Police Station – Ravghat, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 303(2), 3(5), 306, 317(2), 334(2), 111(6) and 111(7) of BNS be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant/s shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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/s shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her/their counsel. In case of his/her/their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her/them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant/s misuse/s the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her/their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant/s fail/s to appear before the court on the date fixed in such 6 proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her/them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant/s 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/s 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/her/them 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 Priya