1 CGHC010261162026 2026:CGHC:36645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6914 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. 21/2026 registered at Police Station- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the o>ence punishable under Sections 303(2), 61(2), 111and 3(5) of BNS. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report before the concerned Police Station stating that on the date of incident, unknown persons entered into the plant and committed theft of copper wire valued at Rs.17,000/- from the transformer situated at Durpa Shanti Nagar, as mentioned in the FIR. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the police registered the o>ence under Sections 303(2), 61(2), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the present applicants on the basis of his memorandum statement. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit 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 that there is no su2cient material or ingredient of the o>ences punishable under Sections 303(2), 61(2), 111 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. against the applicants. 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 only on the basis of memorandum statements and suspicion, without proper investigation. She further submits that in the same crime number co-accused Virendra Suman has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3760/2026 vide order dated 06.07.2026, hence, the applicants also deserve bail 3 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 co-accused Virendra Suman, in the same crime, has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 3760/2026 vide order dated 06.07.2026. 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. 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, in the same crime, has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 3760/2026 vide order dated 06.07.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, 4 without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let applicants – Amarbabu @ Kundanwani and Raj Aryan @ Chhotu Wani, involved in Crime No. 21/2026 registered at Police Station- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the o>ence punishable under Sections 303(2), 61(2), 111and 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 5 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 ;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 for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal