Chattisgarh High Court
Aslam Khan vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11439
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2260 of 2026
Aslam Khan S/o Shri Azim Khan, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Village Chhuipali,
Ward No. 12, Police Station And Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund C.G.
VAIBHAV
SINGH
... Applicant
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
Date: 2026.03.11
10:37:41 +0530
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Singhoda, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.03.2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.96/2025 registered at Police Station - Singhoda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 305(E), 287, 3(5) of the BNS 2023 and Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. 2
2. As per the prosecution story, on 23.12.2025 at about 11:00 PM, the complainant Avinash Dubey, Food Inspector, Saraipali, along with police staff and Nagar Sainik, was on patrol duty within the jurisdiction of Police Station Singhoda to prevent illegal transportation of paddy. During the course of patrolling, they allegedly received secret information that some unknown persons were illegally refilling LPG gas cylinders at a goat shed farm house situated in front of Navjeevan Hospital, Chhivrakuta, on NH-53, with the intention of earning unlawful profit. Acting upon the said information, the police party reached the spot and allegedly found that LPG gas was being illegally transferred from Indane capsule trucks into small and big domestic cylinders through nozzle pipes without following the prescribed safety norms. On seeing the police party, the accused persons allegedly fled away from the spot taking advantage of darkness towards the nearby forest area, leaving behind the incriminating materials. During inspection of the spot, six capsule trucks, nozzle pipes, a large number of empty and filled LPG cylinders, and an electronic weighing machine were found and seized. The total value of the seized property was assessed at approximately ₹93,00,000/-. On the basis of the written report lodged by the Food Inspector, Crime No. 96/2025 was registered at Police Station Singhoda against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 287, 305(e), 221, 351(2) and 3(5) of law.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and was arrested by the police in connection with the alleged offence. It is contended that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Prakash Gupta, who is alleged to be the main accused 3 in the case, and there is no independent, direct or corroborative evidence collected by the prosecution to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and the name of the present applicant does not find place therein. The applicant was neither apprehended from the spot nor has any incriminating article been recovered from his possession. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is merely a labourer working under co-accused Prakash Gupta, who is the owner of the farm house where the alleged incident is said to have taken place, and the applicant has no ownership, possession, control or supervisory authority over the said premises. It is also contended that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, unnecessary arrest should be avoided and the safeguards prescribed under law are required to be followed, which have not been adhered to in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and his prolonged incarceration is causing severe hardship to his family. It is also submitted that the applicant is suffering from asthma and has faced serious respiratory problems during his period of custody, therefore he requires proper medical treatment. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish bail bond and surety to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposes the bail 4 application of the applicant.
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, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, and the fact that the co-accused, namely Prakash Gupta has already been granted bail vide order dated 28.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 609 of 2026, and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant have been in judicial custody since 04.02.2026, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case.
7. Let applicant, Aslam Khan, involved in Crime No.96/2025 registered at Police Station - Singhoda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 305(E), 287, 3(5) of the BNS 2023 and Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, 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 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 5 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav