1 2026:CGHC:16374 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3214 of 2026 Prem Shankar Gupta S/o Late Janak Lal Gupta Aged About 54 Years R/o Bajar Mohalla, Katghora, P.S. Katghora, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- P.S. Katghora, District- Korba, (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate along with Ms. Barkha Agrawal, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.04.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed 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. 43/2026 registered at Police Station- Katghora, District- Korba, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 317(2), 317(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a written complaint was submitted by the complainant, Surendra Kumar Jangid, Chief RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Executive Manager and Power of Attorney holder of Shivakriti International Limited Company, alleging that on the night of 20.01.2026, certain unknown persons committed theft of railway materials, including iron sleepers and fittings worth approximately ₹2 crores, from the Gevra–Pendra railway project site by threatening the security personnel with weapons. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was conducted and an FIR bearing No. 43/2026 dated 31.01.2026 was registered at Police Station Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 315(5), 317(2), 317(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the main accused, Tej Bahadur Patel, who was working as a JCB operator at the site, had been continuously misappropriating iron materials over a period of time and selling the same to scrap dealers, thereby causing wrongful loss to the company, and that co-accused Ankit Mishra, working as an Account Manager, attempted to fabricate a false case of theft and had instructed a witness to give a misleading statement before the police in order to conceal the internal misappropriation and mislead the investigation. Upon completion of investigation, a final report bearing No. 63/2026 was filed on 22.03.2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) against the present applicant along with five other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 317(2), 317(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Hence, the present bail application. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the very foundation of the prosecution story is doubtful as the FIR alleges an incident of armed theft on 20.01.2026, whereas the statements of security guards and independent witnesses clearly state that no such incident of theft or threat ever took place, thereby making the prosecution case contradictory and unreliable. It is further submitted that the investigation itself reveals that the matter pertains to internal misappropriation by co-accused Tej Bahadur Patel, who has admitted to stealing and selling the materials over a period of time, thus weakening the allegations against the present applicant. It is also submitted that there is no direct or cogent evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and his name has surfaced only in the memorandum statement of co-accused Pranshu Singh @ Rinshu, which has no evidentiary value in absence of independent corroboration. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery from the applicant is only Rs.1,000/- which is insignificant in comparison to the alleged amount of ₹ 2 crores. It is also submitted that at the most, the allegation against the applicant is of purchasing scrap material and there is no material to show that he had knowledge that the same was stolen property. It is further submitted that the main allegations of misappropriation are against co-accused Tej Bahadur Patel and the applicant stands on a different footing. It is also submitted that the marriage of the applicant’s daughter is scheduled on 27.04.2026 and his presence is necessary to perform his duties, 4 failing which the family would suffer hardship. He further submits that the present applicant has one previous criminal antecedent which is disposed of, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, he is in jail since 16.03.2026, 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 bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature involving theft and misappropriation of railway materials of huge value and that during investigation, sufficient material has been collected indicating the involvement of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is connected with the chain of disposal of stolen property and his role cannot be ruled out at this stage. It is also submitted that applicant has one more criminal antecedent, looking to the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed, the applicant is 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, the nature of allegations, the material available on record, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly that there is no direct evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence, that his implication is based mainly on memorandum 5 statements without independent corroboration, that the alleged recovery is minimal in comparison to the total alleged loss, and that the main allegations are against the co-accused, and also considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.03.2026, he has one previous criminal antecedent which are disposed of and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Prem Shankar Gupta, involved in Crime No. 43/2026 registered at Police Station- Katghora, District- Korba, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 317(2), 317(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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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 fixed, either personally or 6 through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient 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 fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial 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 fixed 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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan