1 CGHC010284672026 2026:CGHC:36800 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7473 of 2026 1. Prakash Jaware Son Of Raju Jaware, Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Ukava, Police Station Rupjhar, District Balaghat (M.P.) (Permanent Resident) At Present Resident Of Lodhi Mohalla, Uparpara, Badi Koni, Police Station Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Ashish Kumar Gurum @ Dainy Uike Son Of Kamal Bahadur Gurum Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Ward No. 10, Panitola Ukava, Out Post Ukva, Police Station Rupjhar, District- Balaghat (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Chowki Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Gorelal Tandon, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail, as PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.19 12:13:08 +0530 2 he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 269/2026, registered at Police Chowki Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305(A), 331(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiay Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the brief facts of the prosecution case, the complainant, Saiyed Rafique Ali, lodged a complaint before the concerned Police Station stating that on 09.04.2026, at about 2:00 p.m., he, along with his family members, locked their house and went to Village Okhar (Malhar) to attend a marriage ceremony. On 11.04.2026, at about 2:00 a.m., unknown persons allegedly broke open the lock of the window of the house and committed theft of gold and silver articles and cash, collectively valued at approximately Rs.4,00,000/-. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the aforesaid crime and, during the course of investigation, arrested the present applicant along with the other accused persons for the alleged offences. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant No.1 is having two previous criminal antecedents of similar nature of 2026, and in other cases he has been acquitted whereas applicant No. 2 is having one previous criminal antecedent. The same has been explained in Part – D of the bail application. The applicants are in jail since 23.04.2026 and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed. He further submits that applicant No.1 has two previous criminal antecedents of a similar nature, and an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been seized from his 3 possession, whereas applicant No.2 has one previous criminal antecedent, and an amount of Rs.500/- has been seized from his possession. Therefore, learned State counsel submits that the applicants are not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the applicant No. 1 and the fact that and an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been seized from his possession and he has two previous criminal antecedents of a similar nature of the year 2026, which shows that he is a habitual offender, thus, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to grant regular bail to the applicant No. 1. 7. Accordingly, this bail application of applicant No.1 – Prakash Jaware involved in Crime No. 269/2026, registered at Police Chowki Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305(A), 331(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiay Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. Whereas the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and applicant No.2 has one previous criminal antecedent, and an amount of Rs.500/- has been seized from his possession, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant No.2 is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant No.2 - Ashish Kumar Gurum @ Dainy Uike involved in Crime No. 269/2026, registered at Police Chowki Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305(A), 331(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiay Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to 4 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 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 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 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. 5 10. 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 Preeti