1 CGHC010284742026 2026:CGHC:35989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7465 of 2026 1 - Prakash Jaware S/o Raju Jaware Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Ukava, Police Station Rupjhar, District- Balaghat, M.P., At Present R/o Lodhi Mohalla, Uparpara, Badi Koni, Police Station Koni, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Ashish Kumar Gurum @ Dainy Uike S/o Kamal Bahadur Gurum Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ward No. 10, Panitola Ukava, Out Post Ukva, Police Station Rupjhar, District- Balaghat, M.P. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House O7cer, Police Of Police Chowki Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Gorelal Tandon, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. This is the 9rst bail application 9led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 14/2026 registered at Police Chowki- Naila, Police Station - Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) for RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the o@ence punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report before the concerned Police Station stating that he owns two houses and had locked his house situated at Shri Ram Kunj, Nahariya Baba Road, while residing in his other house. It is alleged that during the intervening night of 02.01.2026, some unknown person broke open the lock of the said house and committed theft of certain gold and silver articles along with cash, collectively valued at approximately Rs.80,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered the crime against the unknown accused persons for the o@ences alleged. During the course of investigation, the present applicants along with other co-accused persons were apprehended and arrested in connection with the alleged o@ence. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and that they have not committed the o@ence in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that the alleged seizure has been falsely created and the seizure memo has been prepared by the police only with a view to implicate the applicants in the present crime, whereas the applicants have a strong and genuine defence which would be duly established during the course of trial. It is further submitted that the applicants have been roped in the present case on account of their previous criminal antecedents and that the 3 mere existence of antecedents cannot, by itself, be treated as su7cient ground to deny bail, particularly when the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been 9led. As regards applicant No.1, it is fairly submitted that he has three criminal antecedents, out of which Crime No.14/2026 registered at Police Station Janjgir for o@ences under Sections 331(4) and 305(A) of the BNS and Crime No.115/2026 registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, for o@ences under Sections 331(4) and 305(A) of the BNS are presently pending, whereas in Crime No.60/2021 registered at Police Station Rupjhar, District Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, for an o@ence under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, the applicant has already been acquitted. So far as applicant No.2 is concerned, he has only one criminal antecedent, namely Crime No.138/2024 registered at Police Station Rupjhar, District Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, for o@ences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 308(5) and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act. It is submitted that the applicants undertake to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings. He also submits that the applicants are in jail since 23.04.2026, the charge-sheet has been 9led and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has been 9led before the competent Court. She further submits that the 4 allegations against the applicants are serious in nature and that they are involved in the alleged house-breaking and theft of gold and silver articles and cash. It is further submitted that incriminating material, including the alleged seizure, has been collected during investigation and the applicants have criminal antecedents. Applicant No.1 has three antecedents, out of which two cases, i.e. Crime Nos.14/2026 of Police Station Janjgir and 115/2026 of Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, under Sections 331(4) and 305(A) of the BNS, are pending, while in Crime No.60/2021 of Police Station Rupjhar, District Balaghat, under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, he has been acquitted. Applicant No.2 has one criminal antecedent, i.e. Crime No.138/2024 of Police Station Rupjhar, District Balaghat, involving o@ences under the BNS and SC/ST Act. Considering the nature of the allegations and the antecedents of the applicants, the she submits that no ground for grant of bail is made out and prays that they are not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, though the allegation against the applicants is that they, along with other co- accused persons, broke open the locked house of the complainant and committed theft of gold and silver articles and cash worth approximately Rs.80,000/-, and the applicants have criminal antecedents, applicant No.1 has three antecedents, out of which 5 two cases are pending, while applicant No.2 has one pending criminal case, but also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been 9led in the present case, they are in jail since 23.04.2026, the criminal antecedents are explained, and trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the Applicants – Prakash Jaware and Ashish Kumar Gurum @ Dainy Uike, involved in Crime No. 14/2026 registered at Police Chowki- Naila, Police Station - Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) for the o@ence punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall 9le an undertaking to the e@ect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date 9xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without 6 su7cient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date 9xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberate or without su7cient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. O7ce is directed to provide a certi9ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan