1 2026:CGHC:18766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2470 of 2026 Priyansu Goswami S/o Tomendra Goswami Aged About 21 Years R/o Indraprastha Apartment Phase 01 House No A/204 Raipura D.D Nagar Thana, Raipur, Distrct Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. D.D. Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Soni, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.04.2026 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. 30/2026 registered at Police Station- D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that between 02.01.2026 and 06.01.2026, during the intervening night hours from about RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 09:00 p.m. to 07:00 a.m., the applicant’s blue coloured motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 10 K 1817, valued at approximately Rs. 15,000/-, which was parked in the parking area of Indraprastha Colony Phase-2, Block D, Raipur, was stolen by unknown persons. During the course of investigation, on the basis of information received from an informant, accused Priyanshu Goswami and a juvenile, namely Lomash Yadav, were apprehended and their memorandum statements were recorded, wherein they disclosed that they had conspired to commit theft of the aforesaid motorcycle and also a black scooter (Activa) bearing registration No. CG 04 PU 9178 from near Satyam Vihar Colony on the night of 12.02.2026, and pursuant to their statements, the stolen motorcycle and the said Activa were seized from their possession. 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. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the applicant has been arrested merely on presumption, as there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident. He further submits that the present applicant has only one previous criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, he is in jail since 15.02.2026 and is aged about 21 years, and his continued detention at such a young age among hardened criminals is likely to adversely affect his future, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is involved in the commission of the offence and has been rightly implicated during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the stolen motorcycle has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which clearly connects him with the alleged crime and he has one previous criminal antecedent. Therefore, considering the gravity of the allegations, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on 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, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that though the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence of theft and recovery of one bike is made from him, but also considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.02.2026, he has only one previous criminal antecedent, and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial may take some more 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 - Priyansu Goswami, involved in Crime No. 30/2026 registered at Police Station- D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, 4 (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 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 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, 5 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. 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