1 CGHC010300342026 2026:CGHC:34148 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7094 of 2026 Ramji Maravi S/o Paras Ram Maravi Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Badna, P.S. Kukdur, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kukdur, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/08/2026 1. This is the 9rst bail application 9led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 10/2026 registered at Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the o:ences punishable under Sections 309(4), 309(6), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, the complainant Samaru Dhurve lodged a report alleging that on 19.02.2026, while he was returning from Kui Market on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-09-JT-7896, two unknown persons requested him to drop them KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 at Village Neur. It is alleged that when they reached near Damgarh Nala Bridge, the said persons assaulted the complainant and robbed his motorcycle before Aeeing from the spot. During investigation, the complainant was medically examined and, accordingly, Sections 309(6) and 351(3) of the BNS were also added. Subsequently, on the basis of secret information, the present applicant was apprehended and in his memorandum statement, he allegedly disclosed that he, along with co-accused Chhannu Dhurve and a child in conAict with law, had committed the robbery of the complainant's motorcycle. It is further alleged that the applicant also disclosed his involvement in another incident relating to robbery of cash from a cloth merchant. Pursuant to the memorandum statement, the robbed motorcycle and cash amounting to Rs.38,500/- were recovered from the house of the present applicant. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been 9led before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant was not named in the FIR and has been implicated during the course of investigation. He also submits that a co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 5649/2026 vide order dated 29.06.2026. It is further submitted that the applicant has two criminal antecedents pertaining to the years 2024 and 2026, both of which are still pending and have been duly explained in the bail application. He further submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 3 01.03.2026, charge-sheet has already been 9led and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that during the course of investigation, on the basis of the memorandum statement of the present applicant, the robbed motorcycle involved in the present crime as well as cash amounting to Rs.38,500/- were recovered from his possession. She further submits that the applicant has two criminal antecedents of the years 2024 and 2026, both of which are still pending. However, he could not dispute the fact that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 5649/2026. 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 investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has already been 9led, the applicant is in custody since 01.03.2026, the applicant has two criminal antecedents of the years 2024 and 2026, both of which are stated to be pending and have been duly explained in the bail application of part-D and further considering that though the robbed motorcycle and cash amounting to Rs.38,500/- are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the present applicant and a similarly situated co- accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 5649/2026, vide order dated 29.06.2026, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is also entitled to be 4 enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Ramji Maravi, involved in Crime No. 10/2026 registered at Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the o:ences punishable under Sections 309(4), 309(6), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 9le an undertaking to the e:ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 9xed 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 9xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suEcient 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 9xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in 5 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 9xed 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 suEcient 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. 9. OEce is directed to send a certi9ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance.diurt fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal