Chattisgarh High Court
Surendra Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14380
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
GOURI MCRC No. 2199 of 2026
MUDALIAR
Surendra Yadav S/o Shri Nanhu Yadav, Aged About 51 Years Occupation-
Digitally signed by
GOURI MUDALIAR Business, R/o LIG 1083 Hirapur, P.S. Kabir Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur
Date: 2026.03.27
12:49:37 +0530 C.G.
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Pulgaon (Chowki Anjora),
Distt. Durg C.G.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate.
For : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy.G.A.
Respondent/State
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25/03/2026
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.22/2026 registered at Police Station Pulgaon (Chowki Anjora), Distt. Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(3), 3(5), 61(2), and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 2
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that case originates from a complaint by Pradeep Kumar Shukla, who operates "Aarohi Goods Transport". It is alleged that on December 29, 2025, a truck (CG-04- PR-8522) was loaded with 12.050 metric tons of HB wire and winding wire from Mittal Industries, Durg, intended for Pune. Further instead of delivering the goods, the co-accused (truck owner and driver) allegedly conspired to misappropriate the material using a forged lease agreement. The investigation alleges the material was sold to a scrap dealer, Aamir Khan, who then sold it to the applicant (Surendra Yadav) for Rs.3,62,000. The applicant further sold the material to Om Sai Industries for Rs.3,80,000. Upon arrest, the police recovered Rs.8,000 cash and a mobile phone from the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the applicant is a bona fide scrap dealer who purchased the material in the ordinary course of business without any knowledge that it was stolen or misappropriated and the applicant has a clean record and no previous criminal history. He would further submit that the complainant, Pradeep Kumar Shukla, appeared before the lower court and submitted an affidavit stating he has no objection to the Applicant being granted bail, confirming the applicant committed no direct criminal act against him. He would submit that the charge sheet has been filed in this case, the applicant is in jail since 25/01/2026 and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application 3 and she would submit that charge sheet has been filed in this case before the competent court and the applicant has no criminal antecedents.
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 of allegation levelled against the applicant who is a scrap dealer, further considering the fact that complainant has no objection for grant of bail to the applicant, period of detention of the applicant since 25/01/2026, charge sheet has been filed, applicant has no criminal antecedents and also considering the fact that trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicant- Surendra Yadav, involved in Crime No.22/2026 registered at Police Station Pulgaon (Chowki Anjora), Distt. Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(3), 3(5), 61(2), and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 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 4 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 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 for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE gouri