1 2026:CGHC:6323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1245 of 2026 Sandeep Laxman Bhosle S/o Shri Laxman Bhosle, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village, Post And Police Station Chakan, District Pune (Maharashtra), Present Address- Village- Chhati Police Station- Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.02.2026 1. This is the Second Bail Application 昀椀led under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 379/2024, registered at Police Station- Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under Sections 331(1), 305(a) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 1903/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.06.2025 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.09.2024 at about 11:00 a.m., the parents of the complainant, namely Meera Pandey and Shiv Narayan Pandey, left their house situated at Umashankar Nagar, Ward No. 1, District Raipur, for Bilaspur after locking the premises and handing over the keys to the complainant, Harshit Pandey. When the complainant returned at about 3:00 p.m., he found the lock of the main door broken and the almirah in his mother’s bedroom forcibly opened, with articles lying scattered, giving rise to suspicion of theft. Thereafter, upon the return of his parents at about 8:00 p.m., it was con昀椀rmed that unknown persons had committed theft of gold ornaments, including a mangalsutra, ear tops, a nose ring and a ring weighing about 14 grams valued at approximately Rs. 85,000/-, along with cash of about Rs. 11,000/-, totalling Rs. 96,000/-. On the basis of the said incident, the FIR was registered and the applicant was subsequently arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application, earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 1903/2025 was rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 20.06.2025 on merits. He further submits that the applicant has been in jail since 25.10.2024 and has, therefore, undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly one year and three months by the time this bail application is being considered. It is further submitted that the co-accused namely Sangat Singh Kalyani has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in MCRC No.5922/2025, and co-accused namely Kiran Patil has also been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex 3 Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 12746/2025 vide order dated 03.11.2025. and therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that charge-sheet has been 昀椀led before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that this is the applicant’s second bail application and that the earlier application, MCRC No. 1903/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.06.2025 on merits, further considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 25.10.2024 and has thus undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly one year and three months, further the co-accused namely Sangat Singh Kalyani has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in MCRC No.5922/2025, and co-accused namely Kiran Patil has also been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 12746/2025 vide order dated 03.11.2025, hence this Court is of the considered view that, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 4 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Sandeep Laxman Bhosle, involved in Crime No. 379/2024, registered at Police Station- Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under Sections 331(1), 305(a) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay 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 昀椀le an undertaking to the e昀昀ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 昀椀xed 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 昀椀xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without su昀케cient 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 昀椀xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the 5 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 昀椀xed 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 su昀케cient 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. O昀케ce is directed to send a certi昀椀ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan