1 2026:CGHC:17197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3395 of 2026 Sandeep Sahu S/o Mantram Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Block No. 34, Room No. 07, Sector 03, Khalbada Saddu, P.S. - Vidhansabha, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Pandari, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Laxmi Gupta, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.04.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 77/2025 registered at Police Station- Pandari, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.04.2025, as per the written complaint, the complainant’s son, Gopichand Sahu, had RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 parked his Yamaha MT-15 motorcycle bearing registration No. CG- 04-PU-0126 outside a coaching centre at Mowa, Raipur, and upon returning after about an hour, found the vehicle missing, whereupon an FIR was registered at Police Station Pandri against unknown persons. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the present applicant, namely Sandeep Sahu, was arrested on 24.01.2026, and it is alleged that he made a memorandum statement stating that he, along with co-accused Khebendra Das Manikpuri, had stolen the said motorcycle by using a master key. On the basis of the said memorandum, the stolen vehicle was allegedly recovered from a multi-level parking near Ghadi Chowk. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the offence has been registered against the applicant, who has been arrested, hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, having no role in the commission of the alleged offence, and that there is no cogent legal evidence available on record to substantiate the allegations made by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution rests entirely on the memorandum statement recorded during police custody, which is inadmissible in evidence being hit by Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. It is also contended that the co-accused, namely Khevendra Das Manikpuri, having an identical role, has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble this Court vide order dated 17.03.2026 passed in 3 MCRC No. 2475/2026, and therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to parity. She further submits that the present applicant has 02 previous criminal antecedents explained in paragraph 4(a) of the bail application. She also submits that the applicant is a young man aged about 19 years, having deep roots in society, with no likelihood of absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed on 18.02.2026, the applicant is in jail since 24.01.2026, and no prosecution witnesses have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the present bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant is actively involved in the commission of the offence and his complicity is clearly reflected from the material collected during the course of investigation. It is contended that the co-accused, namely Khevendra Das Manikpuri, who has been granted bail by the Hon’ble this Court vide order dated 17.03.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2475/2026, stands on a different footing, as no recovery was effected from him. In contrast, in the present case, the stolen motorcycle has been recovered at the instance of the applicant pursuant to his memorandum statement, which clearly establishes his direct involvement in the offence. It is further submitted that such recovery is a strong incriminating circumstance against the applicant and distinguishes his case from that of the co-accused. 4 He also submits that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents of the similar nature which shows that he is a habitual offender, 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. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though there are allegations against the applicant regarding involvement in the theft of the motorcycle and recovery of the stolen vehicle has also been effected at his instance, but it is noted that the case is primarily based on the memorandum statement and the charge-sheet having been filed . It is also taken into consideration that the co-accused, namely Khevendra Das Manikpuri, has already been granted bail by this Court, though his case stands on a slightly different footing as no recovery was effected from him. However, considering the overall facts, the age of the applicant, the period of detention since 24.01.2026 and previous criminal antecedents of the applicant explained in paragraph 4(a) of the bail application, the fact that no prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, and that the trial is likely to take time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Sandeep Sahu, involved in Crime No. 77/2025 registered at Police Station- Pandari, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya 5 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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 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 6 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. 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 Rahul Dewangan