1 2026:CGHC:7659 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9360 of 2025 Senmugam Kaveri S/o Kaveri Aged About 32 Years R/o Udairaj Palyam P.S.- Ambur, District : Vellore, Tamil Nadu ---Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station -Civil Line, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Non-applicant MCRC No. 9638 of 2025 1 - Manjunathan Ganesh Govindasamy S/o Ganesh Govindasamy Aged About 29 Years R/o Udairaj Palyam P.S.- Ambur, District : Vellore, Tamil Nadu 2 - Suresh S/o Kuppan Aged About 30 Years R/o Ambur Taluk, Mariyamman Kovil Street P.S.- Ambur, District : Vellore, Tamil Nadu ---Applicants Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Civil Line, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For respective Applicants : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.12 10:43:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.02.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 345/2025, registered at Police Station : Civil Line District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305, 331(4) & 3(5) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Shivnath Sinha lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 28.07.2025 stating that he was residing in the Boys’ Hostel situated at Sandhya Residency, District Raipur, and at about 06:09 PM some unknown persons committed theft of mobile phones and laptops from his Room No. 302 and other rooms of the hostel. During the course of investigation, the prosecution agency examined the CCTV footage and, on the basis of the memorandums of the applicants, apprehended and arrested them in connection with the said offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that no specific role of the applicants has been established by the prosecution, as no seizure has been made from their possession and no independent evidence has been collected to show their involvement in the alleged crime. The applicants were arrested only on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused and 3 were not named in the FIR, nor is there any material to show their participation in any criminal conspiracy or direct act in the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the applicants have been in judicial custody since 02.08.2025, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants and submits that the present applicants, along with other co-accused persons, were involved in the commission of theft. It is further submitted that the applicants have two criminal antecedents, therefore, they are not entitled to be granted regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the present applicants, moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and they are in jail since 02.08.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Senmugam Kaveri, Manjunathan Ganesh Govindasamy and Suresh involved in Crime No. 345/2025, registered at Police Station : Civil Line District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305, 331(4) & 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the 4 following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse 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 fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial 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 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 applicants are 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 them 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 Vaibhav