1 CGHC010264102026 2026:CGHC:36643 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6924 of 2026 1 - Amar Babu @ Kundanvani S/o Suraj Kumar Vani Aged About 26 Years R/o Risda, P.S. Masturi, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Raj Aryan @ Chhotuvani S/o Baban Vani Aged About 20 Years R/o Risda, P.S. Masturi, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O2cer, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.08.2026 1. This is the :rst bail application :led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 48/2026 registered at Police Station- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 303(2), 61(2), 111 and 3(5) of BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 a report before the concerned police station stating that on the date of the incident, unknown persons entered the plant and committed theft of approximately 200 kg of copper wire from the transformer of the water :lter plant situated in front of Loharsi Irrigation Colony, having a total value of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Based upon the complaint lodged by the complainant, the police registered a case under Sections 303(2), 61(2), 111 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the present applicants on the basis of their memorandum statements. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion and memorandum statements. It is submitted that no alleged stolen article has been seized from their possession and the same was recovered from a Kabadi shop, while the Chhota Hathi vehicle seized by the police does not belong to the applicants. It is further submitted that the mandatory provisions of Sections 105 and 185 of the B.N.S.S. have not been complied with and there is no su2cient material to establish the ingredients of the alleged o=ences. She further submits that the applicants have already been granted bail by this Court in :ve criminal antecedents and have again been implicated in the present case without any proper investigation. Lastly, it is submitted that co-accused Virendra Suman and Santosh Kumar Bhaskar, in the same crime number, have already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. Nos. 3615/2026 and 5196/2026 vide orders dated 06.07.2026 and 06.07.2026, respectively, hence, the applicants also deserve to be 3 enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicants have criminal antecedents of similar nature. However, learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that said co-accused Virendra Suman and Santosh Kumar Bhaskar, in the same crime number, have already been granted bail by this Court. So far as the criminal antecedents are concerned, applicant No.1 has six criminal antecedents of similar nature, vide Crime Nos. 333/2024, 17/2024, 16/2024, 12/2024, 651/2023 and 4/2024, whereas applicant No.2 has :ve criminal antecedents of similar nature, vide Crime Nos. 16/2024, 17/2024, 12/2024, 651/2023 and 4/2024. It is further submitted that a cutter and wires have been recovered from the applicants. Accordingly, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary and other material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of o=ence, period of detention of the applicants since 06.02.2026 and the fact that in the present case, charge- sheet has been :led before the competent Court and also considering the criminal antecedents of the applicants and recovery made from them and also considering the fact that co-accused Virendra Suman and Santosh Kumar Bhaskar, in the same crime, have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am 4 inclined to grant bail to the applicant 7. Accordingly the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let applicants – Amar Babu @ Kundanwani and Raj Aryan @ Chhotuvani, involved in Crime No. 48/2026 registered at Police Station- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 303(2), 61(2), 111 and 3(5) 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 applicants shall :le an undertaking to the e=ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates :xed 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 :xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without su2cient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses 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 :xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in 5 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 :xed 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 deliberated or without su2cient 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. 9. O2ce is directed to send a certi:ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- S(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal