1 2026:CGHC:18720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2506 of 2026 1 - Divyanshu Suryavanshi S/o Shri Sakhan Lal Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Jawalpur, P.S. Baloda, Distt - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sushila Bai W/o Shri Sakhan Lal Suryavanshi Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Jawalpur, P.S. Baloda, Distt - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., Police Station Baloda Distt. Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anshit Singh Hora, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 85/2026, registered at Police Station – Baloda, Dist.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 238 of BNS. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Date: 2026.04.24 19:05:58 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant Sanjay Miri lodged a report stating that on 16.02.2026 he had gone to Delhi with his family after dropping his mother at his sister’s house, and upon returning on 23.02.2026, he found the lock of his house broken and certain articles, including a gold necklace, cash of ₹20,000/- and his wife’s Aadhaar card, missing. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No. 85/2026 was registered at Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa for the relevant offences. During the course of investigation, on the basis of suspicion arising from a CCTV footage and the statement of a witness regarding use of the Aadhaar card, the present applicants were interrogated and allegedly made memorandum statements, on the basis of which it was alleged that the applicant No. 1 had committed the theft and had handed over part of the stolen property to applicant No. 2. Consequently, both the applicants were arrested on 24.02.2026 and investigation was carried out. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the FIR was initially registered against an unknown person. It is further submitted that no stolen property has been recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicants and the prosecution case is based on an improbable story not supported by the FIR. The applicants have no criminal antecedents, are in custody since 24.02.2026, and the case is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and likely to take considerable time for its 3 conclusion. The applicants are permanent residents with no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence and are ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all conditions hence, he is enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application, submitting that sufficient prima facie material exists against the applicants, including memorandum statements and recovery of part of the stolen property/cash, and considering the gravity of the offence, they are not entitled to bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of allegations, the fact that the FIR was initially registered against an unknown person, absence of recovery of stolen property from the exclusive possession of the applicants, and the fact that the case is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the applicants is not warranted. Further, taking into account that the applicants are in custody since 24.02.2026, have no criminal antecedents, and there is no material on record to indicate likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the applicants on bail, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicant, Divyanshu Suryavanshi & Smt. Sushila Bai 4 involved in Crime No. 85/2026, registered at Police Station – Baloda, Dist.-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 238 of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with one surety each respectively 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) 5 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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Saxena