[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Satyam Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16122
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3119 of 2026
Satyam Shukla S/o Rajesh Shukla, Aged About 25 Years R/o Pila
Buglow, Lodhipara, Rental House Of The Sunil Pandey Near Sai
AKHILESH
KUMAR
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
DEWANGAN KUMAR
Mandir, Pandri Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
DEWANGAN
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
08/04/2026
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. 327/2025 registered at Police Station
Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 309(4), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms
Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of incident i.e.
12.12.2025 at about 07:30 PM, the complainant, namely, Devi Lal
Teli, lodged a report at the concerned police station against three
unknown persons alleging that they committed loot of Honda
Shine motorcycle bearing registration No. CG/04/LU/0793 by
showing a knife and also threatened him with the said weapon. It
is further alleged that after committing the aforesaid offence, the
accused persons fled away from the spot. On the basis of the said
report, the police registered an offence under Sections 309(4),
3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Hence,
the bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in
offence in question. He further submits that no seizure of any
motorcycle or knife has been made from the possession of
present applicant, only on the basis of suspicion, present
applicant has been made an accused in the present case. He also
submits that the identically situated co-accused, namely, Tarun
Baghel has already been granted bail by this Court vide order
dated 19.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.1740 of 2026. The
applicant is in jail since 13.12.2025, the applicant has four criminal
antecedents of the years 2021, 2022 and 2024 under the IPC and
NDPS Act, out of which the case under the NDPS Act has already
been disposed of, further charge-sheet has been filed and the trial
is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays
for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in
the present case. She further submits that the applicant is alleged
to be one of the accused persons involved in the aforesaid
incident and participated in the commission of loot of the
motorcycle by threatening the complainant with a knife. So far as
criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant
has five criminal antecedents under the IPC and NDPS Act, out of
which, the case under NDPS has been disposed of and rest of the
four cases are still pending, therefore, the applicant is a habitual
offender and is not entitled for grant of bail.
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 and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant
since 13.12.2025, the fact that though the applicant is alleged to
be one of the accused persons involved in the aforesaid incident
and participated in the commission of loot of the motorcycle by
threatening the complainant with a knife and has five criminal
antecedents under the IPC and NDPS Act, out of which, the case
under NDPS has already been disposed of and rest of the four
cases are still pending, but considering the fact that the co-
accused, Tarun Baghel has already been granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 19.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.1740 of
2026 and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of
the aforesaid co-accused person, further the charge-sheet has
been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the
applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
8. Let the Applicant-Satyam Shukla, involved in Crime No. 327/2025
registered at Police Station Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 3(5) of BNS and
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 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 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.
9. 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
Akhil
