1 CGHC010362202026 2026:CGHC:42824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8796 of 2026 1 - Pradeep Soni S/o Sachin Soni Aged About 24 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Musakhedi, Police Station Tilaknagar, District Indore Madhyapradesh. ...Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur C. G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Barun Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.10.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Third Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 104/2025, registered at Police Station, Sakri District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4) and 3(5) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.02.2025, complainant, Lalit Sharma lodged a report at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur, stating that on 23.02.2025 at about 07:00 P.M.. he had locked his house and left for Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, along with his family to 2 attend the Maha Kumbh Mela. On 26.02.2025 at about 07:30 P.M., his neighbour informed him that the door of his house was open. Upon video calling, he noticed that the lock of the house had been broken and the articles kept inside were scattered. On returning home on 27.02.2025, he found that gold and silver ornaments and other articles, collectively valued at approximately Rs.95,000/-, had been stolen. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the offences against the present applicant. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the third bail application preferred by the applicant. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2762 of 2026, on the ground that the applicant was having three criminal antecedents of identical nature. He further submits that co-accused namely Sohabat Singh Bhuriya has been granted bail in MCRC No. 8000/2026 vide order dated 01.09.2026. He would also submit that the applicant is in custody since 17.03.2025. Accordingly he prays that the applicant may kindly be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he, along with co-accused persons, committed theft in the complainant's house by breaking the door lock while the complainant was away, and thereafter sold the stolen gold and silver ornaments to a person in Madhya Pradesh. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has three criminal antecedents of identical 3 nature, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the third bail application of the applicant and his second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2762 of 2026. However, considering the fact that the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8000 of 2026 vide order dated 01.09.2026, and further considering that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in judicial custody since 17.03.2025, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on 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 through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (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. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Jyoti