1 2026:CGHC:15829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3062 of 2026 Kuleshwar Dhivar S/o Raju Ram Dhivar Aged About 23 Years R/o Godpara Ward 17 Mahasamund, P.S. Mahasamund Distt Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House O1cer, Police Station Palari Balodabazar, Distt Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/04/2026 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 472/2025 registered at Police Station- Palari, Balodabazar District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the o?ence punishable under Sections 309(2), 109(1), 111, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant, Ramesh KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Kumar Sahu, lodged a written complaint on 16.11.2025 at Police Station Palari stating that on 13.11.2025, he was travelling from Palari to Khartora on a motorcycle along with his friend, Bisambhar. It is alleged that at about 03:30 PM to 03:45 PM, when they had stopped between Village Ghotiya and Village Kusmi, and while Bisambhar had gone a short distance away to relieve himself, the complainant was standing near the motorcycle, at which time six unknown persons arrived on two motorcycles (three persons on each), and one of them took out a large knife, assaulted the complainant and forcibly robbed the mobile phone kept in the front pocket of his shirt, thereafter Ceeing from the spot. On the basis of the said report, Police Station Palari registered Crime No. 472/2025 against unknown persons under Sections 309(2), 109(1), and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, and took up the matter for investigation. During investigation, it was found that the present accused, in furtherance of a common intention along with other co-accused persons, had committed such o?ences in an organized manner, and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been :led before the competent Court after adding Section 111 of the B.N.S. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged o?ences. It is further submitted that no incriminating articles, including the alleged looted mobile phone or the weapon used in the crime, have been recovered from the personal possession of the applicant, and the alleged recoveries (Vivo Y28S and Vivo Y100) 3 were made from co-accused persons, namely Rahul Dhruv and Rishabh Paikra. It is also contended that as per the memorandum statement of co-accused Rahul Dhruv, the alleged o?ence was committed by another co-accused, namely Yaashu Das, and the present applicant had no role in the incident, coupled with the fact that there is delay in lodging the FIR. He further submits that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and the present applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused, which have weak evidentiary value. It is also argued that co-accused Rishabh Paikra has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2610 of 2026, and the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing. It is further submitted that the evidence collected by the prosecution is not prima facie su1cient to connect the applicant with the alleged o?ence. The applicant is in judicial custody since 18.11.2025, has no criminal antecedents and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicant, submit that the charge-sheet has been :led before the competent Court and the trial is currently in progress. He further concur with the submission made on behalf of the applicant to the e?ect that the principle of parity may be considered, however, he contend that the serious nature of the o?ences, the ongoing investigation and the possibility of inCuencing witnesses weigh against granting bail to the applicant at this stage. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 18.11.2025 and further the fact that similarly situated co-accused namely Rishabh Paikara and Rahul Dhruv have been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 2610/2026 and MCRC No. 2937/2026 vide orders dated 19.03.2026 and 01.04.2026 respectively and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Kuleshwar Dhivar, involved in Crime No. 472/2025 registered at Police Station- Palari, Balodabazar District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the o?ence punishable under Sections 309(2), 109(1), 111, 3(5) of Bhartiya 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 :le an undertaking to the e?ect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial 5 court on each date :xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su1cient 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 :xed 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 :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 applicant is deliberate or without su1cient 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. 9. O1ce 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