1 2026:CGHC:16186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1186 of 2026 Navin Manikpuri@ Lal Manikpuri S/o Satish Manikpuri Aged About 19 Years R/o Narmadapara, Behind Radhakrishna Mandir, P.S. Ganj, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08/04/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 477/2025 registered at Police Station- Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 305(a), 3(5) of B.N.S. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a missing report at the concerned police station stating that, on the date of the incident, unknown persons committed theft of the silver KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Ganesh idol. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, the police registered a case under Sections 305(a) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. against unknown persons. After completion of the investigation, the police arrested the present applicant on the basis of a memorandum statement. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has not committed any of the offences as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons, which is false and baseless. There is no material on record to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 305(a) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. as against the present applicant. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to collect sufficient material regarding the alleged theft of the said article and no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicant. The applicant has neither committed theft of the said article nor acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution and his arrest is based only on the memorandum statement. Considering the material available on record, no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has four criminal antecedents, which have been duly explained in the bail application in paragraph No. 4(A) and as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, the applicant prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for 3 grant of bail and submits that, during the course of investigation, the present applicant/accused was taken into custody and upon recording of his memorandum statement, a stolen silver-like Ganesh idol was recovered at his instance. It is further submitted that the applicant was arrested on 11.11.2025 and was thereafter remanded to judicial custody and upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that there are specific and serious allegations against the present applicant that he along with other co-accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed theft of the property belonging to the complainant. The stolen articles include a white ladies purse containing cash amount of ₹1,00,000/-, a silver Ganesh idol, bichhiya, gifts and one Infinix company mobile phone, all of which were dishonestly taken away without the consent of the complainant. She further submits that the complainant had kept the said cash amount for making payments to tent house workers and labourers during a marriage function and such acts of theft cause serious financial loss and hardship to common citizens, who earn their livelihood through hard work and save money over time for essential purposes. It is also submitted that the present applicant has criminal antecedents and as such, he appears to be a habitual offender. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner in which the offence has been committed and the antecedents of the applicant, it is prayed that the bail application of the present applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 4 the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 10.11.2025 and also considering the criminal antecedent of the applicant as explained in the bail application of para No.4(A) as well as recovery made from him and no further interrogation is required and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, 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- Navin Manikpuri @ Lal Manikpuri, involved in Crime No. 477/2025 registered at Police Station- Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 305(a), 3(5) of B.N.S, 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 through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of 5 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal