[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Gaukaran Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:16628
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3275 of 2026
Gaukaran Nishad S/o Shri Mantri @ Ramu Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village- Thankhamharia, District- Kawardha (C.G.) Present Address - Near
Koteshwar Temple, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Saraswati Nagar, Distt.- Raipur
(C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
SHRIVAS
Date: Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
2026.04.10
17:00:12
+0530
Order on Board
10.04.2026
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. 263/2024 registered
at Police Station - Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) offence under
Sections 305(d) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 01.12.2024, the complainant, Smt.
Sangita Sharma, lodged an FIR alleging that on 29.11.2024, between
6:00 PM and 7:00 PM, an unknown person had stolen a silver crown
belonging to the deity at Shani Sheetla Temple, Karbala Talab, Choubey
Colony, Raipur. Consequently, the present Crime/FIR No. 263/2024 was
registered against an "unknown" accused. The applicant was initially
arrested on 01.12.2024 in connection with another matter (Crime No.
300/2024, P.S. Azad Chowk). It is alleged that, while in custody in the
said case, the police recorded his memorandum statement, which led to
his formal arrest in the present case on 20.12.2024 through a production
warrant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case. He submits that in the present case out of
the 11 prosecution witnesses, 5 have already been examined. Crucially,
the complainant, Smt. Sangita Sharma (PW-1), in paragraphs 8 and 9 of
her cross-examination, has categorically stated that she had never seen
the accused either prior to or after the incident. He also submits that the
complainant has explicitly testified that the individual seen in the CCTV
footage is completely different from the applicant shown to her via video
conferencing during the trial. The investigation is complete and the
charge sheet has been filed. He further submits that the applicant is
wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated based solely on a
coerced disclosure statement recorded while he was in police custody in
connection with a separate FIR. There is no direct, ocular, or
corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the present crime. He
submits that the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and
alleged CCTV footage. PW-1 (complainant) has utterly failed to identify
the applicant and has admitted on oath that the applicant does not match
the person seen in the CCTV footage. Continuation of custody in light of
such fragile evidence is unjust. He also submits that the present
applicant has 01 criminal antecedents under the BNS in which the
applicant has already been granted bail by the concerned trial Court. He
also submits that the applicant is in jail since 20.12.2024, conclusion of
the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail
to the present applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application
and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case
before the competent Court.
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 that
the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedents under the BNS in
which the applicant has already been granted bail by the concerned trial
Court. Moreover, the fact that in the present bail application the charge-
sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the present
applicant has been in jail since 20.12.2024, conclusion of the trial may
take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Let the Applicant - Gaukaran Nishad, involved in Crime No. 263/2024
registered at Police Station - Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
offence under Sections 305(d) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, be
released on bail on his 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 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
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek
