1 CGHC010288092026 2026:CGHC:34533 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7197 of 2026 Mused Khan S/o Hanif Khan Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bamni P S Jurhera District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P S Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. This is the 2rst bail application 2led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 165/2025 registered at Police Station- Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 309(4) and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.04.2025 at about 04:30 A.M., the complainant, Jwala Prasad Tandon, lodged a report stating that while he was starting his motorcycle in front of his house RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 to proceed to his sugarcane 2eld, two unknown persons suddenly approached him from Barabaspur Road. It is alleged that one of the assailants caught hold of the complainant and removed the key of his motorcycle, while the other threatened him by placing a sharp- edged knife on his stomach, pushed him to the ground, and both of them @ed towards Dabra Path after forcibly robbing his Honda Shine motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-09-ZB-1143. On the basis of the said report, a criminal case was registered. During the course of investigation, on the basis of the memorandum statements of the accused persons recorded in Crime No. 156/2025 under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, it was revealed that the present o<ence had been committed by the accused persons by threatening the complainant with a knife and robbing the aforesaid motorcycle. Thereafter, the looted motorcycle was allegedly recovered from the possession of the co-accused, Ujer @ Ujji Khan, while the knife allegedly used in the commission of the o<ence was recovered from present applicant Mused Khan. On 2nding a prima facie case, Crime No. 165/2025 was registered against the applicant and the co-accused for the o<ences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no overt act has been attributed to the applicant in the commission of the alleged o<ence. It is also submitted that the FIR was initially registered against unknown 3 persons and, although CCTV cameras were installed at the place of occurrence, the prosecution has failed to identify the actual perpetrators as their faces were allegedly covered with masks at the time of the incident. He further submits that no legally admissible evidence has been collected against the applicant and no stolen property has been recovered from his possession so as to connect him with the alleged o<ence. It is argued that the entire prosecution case rests solely upon the memorandum statements of the accused persons and the consequential seizure, which by themselves constitute weak evidence and are insuGcient to establish the applicant’s involvement. It is further pointed out that the co-accused, namely Mohammad Ujer Khan @ Ujji, who is also similarly placed in the present case, has been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in connection with his criminal antecedents in MCRC Nos. 1400/2026, 893/2026 and 2207/2026 by a common order dated 10.04.2026. He fairly submits that the present applicant has three criminal antecedents, namely Crime No. 156/2025 registered at Police Station Kawardha for the o<ences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Crime No. 20/2025 registered at Police Station Kawardha for the o<ences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Crime No. 370/2025 registered at Police Station Khamtarai for the o<ences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. However, it is submitted that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court in Crime No. 156/2025 vide order dated 21.07.2026 passed 4 in MCRC No. 6522/2026, in Crime No. 20/2025 bail has also been granted today by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 7099/2026, and in Crime No. 370/2025 the applicant has already been released on bail by the learned Trial Court. He further submits that the charge- sheet has been 2led, he is in jail since 24.04.2025, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the present bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant is speci2cally implicated in the commission of a serious o<ence involving the theft of a heavy vehicle and the knife allegedly used in the commission of the o<ence was recovered from present applicant. It is submitted that the involvement of the applicant has surfaced during the investigation and on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, which led to the discovery of relevant facts. She further submits that the applicant is a habitual o<ender and has three criminal antecedents to his credit, namely Crime No. 156/2025 and Crime No. 20/2025 registered at Police Station Kawardha, and Crime No. 370/2025 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, which re@ect his criminal propensity. Considering the nature of allegations, the criminal antecedents of the applicant, and the possibility of his indulging in similar activities if released on bail, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of the case diary and the material available on record, this Court 2nds that the allegation against the present applicant is that the knife allegedly used in the commission of the o<ence was recovered from his possession, whereas the looted Honda Shine motorcycle has been recovered from the co-accused. Further considering the fact that though the applicant has three criminal antecedents, namely Crime No. 156/2025 registered at Police Station Kawardha for the o<ences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Crime No. 20/2025 registered at Police Station Kawardha for the o<ences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Crime No. 370/2025 registered at Police Station Khamtarai for the o<ences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, it is not disputed that the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 6522/2026 arising out of Crime No. 156/2025 vide order dated 21.07.2026, in MCRC No. 7099/2026 arising out of Crime No. 20/2025, which has also been allowed today, and in Crime No. 370/2025 he has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. Further the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he is in jail since 24.04.2025, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered 6 view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Mused Khan, involved in Crime No. 165/2025 registered at Police Station- Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, (C.G.) 9for the o<ence punishable under Sections 309(4) and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 2le an undertaking to the e<ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 2xed 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 2xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suGcient 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 2xed in such proclamation, then, the trial 7 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 2xed 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 suGcient 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. 8. OGce is directed to provide a certi2ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan