[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sudhir Singh @ Dheman Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1994 of 2026
Sudhir Singh @ Dheman Singh S/o Shri Jhulan Singh @ Jhulan Rai Aged
About 28 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Jhulan Ray), R/o Village Khamhari,
P.S. G.B. Nagar (Wrongly Mentioned As G.V. Nagar Tarwara), Tarwara, Distt.
Siwan, Bihar.
... Petitioner
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Kotra Road, Distt.
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mrs. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
06.03.2026
1. Applicant has filed this third bail application under Section 483 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he
has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 125/2020 registered at
Police Station -Kotra Road, District- Raigarh, (C.G.) for offence
punishable under Section 302, 397, 307, 120-B, 398 & 34 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. First bail application
of the present applicant was withdrawn with direction to learned trial
Court to expedite the trial vide order dated 08.01.2024 in MCRC No.
6272 of 2023. Second bail application of the present applicant was also
dismissed on merits vide order dated 06.08.2024 in MCRC No.5187 of
2024.
2. Case of prosecution in brief is that, the applicant along with other co-
accused persons committed loot at ATM machine. At the time of
committing such offence of robbery/loot the driver of vehicle in which
cash was being carried was also shot dead. After the offence was
registered against the unknown person, during investigation based on
CCTV footage applicant was arrested on 06.07.2020 in the
aforementioned crime.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely
implicated in the crime, he has not committed offence as alleged. He
further submits that at this stage he is not pressing this bail application
on merits and is only seeking release of applicant on the ground of
delay of trial. He submits that after rejection of second bail application
only five witnesses have been examined and as many as 36 witnesses
are still remaining to be examined and in view of proceeding of trial it
cannot be expected that the trial could be concluded within a short
period of time. Trial may take a considerable time to conclude and
applicant as of now has completed about 05 years and 8 months of pre-
trial detention in jail. Hence he may be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State opposes the submission
made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that in the
charge-sheet prima facie material is available against the applicant to
connect him in the crime. She also referred to seizure memo to submit
that from possession of applicant apart from cash of about eight lakhs,
pistol had also been seized and one empty ragzine.
5. Pursuant to the order passed on the last date of hearing,
Superintendent of Police, Raigarh has appeared before this Court
through virtual mode. He submits that with regard to the non-returning of
bailable warrant and the arrest warrant he is going to take action against
the officers and he further submits that he will be looking to the service
of summons and warrants upon the prosecution witnesses.
6. At this stage learned counsel for applicant submits that Hon'ble
Supreme Court while considering the delay of trial have extended the
benefit of bail to applicant therein and in support of his contention he
places reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in 2021 SC 56
713 and also in case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another reported in 2024 9 SCC 813.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
enclosed along with the bail application.
8. It is not in dispute that since last about five years and eight months only
36 witnesses have been examined out of total 67 witnesses. The last
witness i.e. the 36th witness has been examined on 19.03.2026. In the
aforementioned facts of the case, considering the period of pre-trial
detention i.e. of about five years and eight months and also considering
the above referred judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, without
commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow
this application.
9. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant
shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum
of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the
Court on the conditions that-
(a) 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.
(b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court
on each date fixed, either personally or through him
counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause,
the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Certified copy as per rules.
Digitally
sd/-
signed by
ALFIZA
ALFIZA BAIG
BAIG Date:
2026.04.07
16:23:03
+0530 (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Alfiza JUDGE
