1 2026:CGHC:6276 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1198 of 2026 Manoj Rajak S/o Late Darbari Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Surajpur, Masjid Gali, P.S. - Surajpur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Manipur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04/02/2026 1. This is the 2rst bail application 2led under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 26/2025 registered at Police Station- Manipur, District- Srurguja (C.G.), for the o9ence punishable under Sections 303(2), 111(2) (ख), 313, 317(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Jagan Ram, lodged a complaint at Police Station Manipur, Ambikapur, stating that during the intervening night of 18 January 2025 at about KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 10:00 PM and 19 January 2025 before 6:00 AM, his motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG 15 DH 9877 was stolen. He stated that he had parked his motorcycle outside the District Hospital, Ambikapur. Later, when he returned to take the motorcycle, he found it missing. He searched for the motorcycle in the nearby area but could not locate it. As a result, it was presumed that the motorcycle had been stolen by an unknown person. After registration of the complaint, the concerned police station investigated the matter and on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, the present applicant was arrested on 10.09.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged o9ence. The prosecution case rests solely on an alleged memorandum statement of a co-accused, with no direct evidence, eyewitness account, independent corroboration, or recovery of the stolen motorcycle or any incriminating article from the applicant. The FIR itself shows that the theft was committed by an unknown person and the applicant was neither named nor suspected by the complainant, his arrest was made nearly eight months after the incident merely on police presumption, which creates serious doubt about the prosecution story. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 10.09.2025 and in the present case, charge-sheet has already been 2led, the matter is at the stage of framing of charge and the trial is likely to take considerable time, making 3 further detention amount to pre-trial punishment. The applicant is a balloon seller and also engaged in tent-house work, having no connection with stolen vehicles, with no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. Moreover, the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 143 of 2026 vide order dated 08.01.2026, and on the ground of parity also, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedent under the Istaghasa and further submit that the charge-sheet has been 2led before the competent Court and the trial is currently in progress. She further concur with the submission made on behalf of the applicant to the e9ect that the principle of parity may be considered, however, she contend that the serious nature of the o9ences, the ongoing investigation and the possibility of in?uencing witnesses weigh against granting bail to the applicant at this stage. 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 o9ence levelled against the applicant and the recovery made from him and further the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been 2led before the competent Court and the applicant has only one criminal antecedent under the Istaghasa which has been explained in the bail application of para No.4(a) and also considering the fact that the co-accused namely Ramdas 4 Singh has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 143/2026, vide order dated 08.01.2026 and the case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused and he is in jail since 10.09.2025, the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Manoj Rajak, involved in Crime No. 26/2025 registered at Police Station- Manipur, District- Srurguja (C.G.), for the o9ence punishable under Sections 303(2), 111(2)(ख), 313, 317(2), 3(5) of BNS, 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 2le an undertaking to the e9ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 2xed 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 2xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suBcient 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, 5 proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date 2xed 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 2xed 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 suBcient 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. OBce is directed to send a certi2ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dirurt fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal