1 2026:CGHC:710 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10212 of 2025 1 - Gaindlal S/o Ramratan Diwan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Arand, Ps Khallari, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Dhanesh Diwan S/o Pyarelal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Arand, Ps Khallari, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chowki Bundeli, Police Station Tendukona, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilonge, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.106/2025, registered at Police Station- Tendukona, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, the complainant, namely Nemichand, lodged a report stating that he had parked his motorcycle (HF Deluxe) bearing registration No. CG-06-GK-1714 while he had gone to purchase liquor, and upon returning, found the said motorcycle missing. Accordingly, the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the said motorcycle was recovered from the joint possession of the accused persons. It is further alleged that 11 motorcycles were jointly stolen by the present applicants along with Budhram Sinha. Out of the said motorcycles, three motorcycles were recovered from applicant No.1, two motorcycles and one scooty were recovered from applicant No.2, and five motorcycles were recovered from Budhram Sinha. In pursuance to which, the applicants were arrested, hence this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicants have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offence of theft and have no business or dealing connected with the stolen motorcycles. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to explain as to how and in what manner the motorcycles were allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused persons, rendering the prosecution story doubtful and unreliable. Further, the applicants are aged about 35 and 38 years, respectively, and their continued incarceration would cause serious prejudice and mental hardship not only to the applicants but also to their family 3 members. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, the applicant No.1 has two previous criminal antecedents, one of the similar nature, in which, he has already been granted bail by the trial Court and further another under the Excise Act. The applicant No.2 has only one previous criminal antecedent of the similar nature, in which, he has already been granted bail by the trial Court. The charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicants are languishing in jail since 14.10.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application of the applicant and also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and on a careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations, the manner of alleged recovery and the fact that the applicants have been in judicial custody since 14.10.2025, charge-sheet already been filed as well as the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time, and further taking into account that although the applicants have previous criminal antecedents, they have already been granted bail in the cases with similar nature of offence and no misuse of liberty has been 4 reported, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants have made out a fit case for grant of bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants are allowed. 8. Let applicants, Gaindlal and Dhanesh Diwan, involved in Crime No.106/2025, registered at Police Station- Tendukona, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicant fails to appear 5 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 Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal