[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sandeep Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:17195
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3398 of 2026
Sandeep Sahu S/o Mantram Sahu, Aged About 19 Years R/o Block No.
34, Room No. 07, Sector 03, Khalbada Saddu, P.S.- Vidhansabha, Distt.
Raipur, (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line, District Raipur
(C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Laxmi Gupta, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
15.04.2026
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. 421/2025 registered at Police Station-
Civil Line, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the basis of a report lodged
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL regarding the theft of a vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-PM-
DEWANGAN
0942 by an unknown person, an FIR was registered at Police
Station Civil Line, Raipur. During the course of investigation, the
present applicant was taken into custody, and it is alleged that
during custodial interrogation, he made a memorandum statement
leading to the discovery of incriminating evidence. Pursuant to the
said disclosure, the police conducted a search at a multi-level
parking facility, which resulted in the recovery and seizure of the
said stolen motorcycle along with several other motorcycles and
Activa scooters, allegedly kept there by the applicant in connivance
with other co-accused persons. On the basis of the aforesaid
allegations, the offence has been registered against the applicant,
who has been arrested, hence, this bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and
has no role to play in the commission of the alleged offence. It is
further submitted that there is no cogent legal material available on
record to constitute the offence as alleged by the prosecution. She
submits that the co-accused, namely Khevendra Das Manikpuri,
has already been granted regular bail by this Hon'ble Court vide
order dated 18.03.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2424/2026, and
therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to be released on
bail on the ground of parity. It is further contended that the alleged
recovery has been made from a multi-level parking, which is a
public place, and therefore, the link between the applicant and the
seized vehicle is highly doubtful and is a matter of trial, especially
when the applicant has not been named in the FIR. She further
submits that the present applicant has 02 previous criminal
antecedents explained in paragraph 4(a) of the bail application. She
also submits that the applicant is a young man aged about 19
years, having deep roots in society, with no likelihood of absconding
or tampering with prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that
the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in jail since
09.01.2026, and no prosecution witnesses have been examined till
date and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion.
Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the present bail
application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted
before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is
actively involved in the commission of the offence and his complicity
is clearly established from the material collected during
investigation. It is contended that the co-accused, namely
Khevendra Das Manikpuri, who has been granted regular bail by
this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 18.03.2026 passed in MCRC
No. 2424/2026, stands on a different footing, as no recovery was
effected from him. In contrast, in the present case, the stolen
motorcycle along with other vehicles has been recovered at the
instance of the applicant from a multi-level parking pursuant to his
memorandum statement, which clearly establishes his direct
involvement in the offence. It is further submitted that such recovery
is a strong incriminating circumstance against the applicant and
distinguishes his case from that of the co-accused. He also submits
that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents of the similar
nature which shows that he is a habitual offender, therefore, the
applicant 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
that though there are allegations against the applicant regarding his
involvement in the offence and recovery of the stolen vehicle has
also been effected at his instance, it is noted that the case is
primarily based on the memorandum statement and the recovery
has been made from a public place, thereby making the nexus
between the applicant and the seized property a matter of trial. It is
also taken into consideration that the co-accused, namely
Khevendra Das Manikpuri, has already been granted regular bail by
this Court vide order dated 18.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.
2424/2026, though his case stands on a different footing as no
recovery was effected from him. However, considering the overall
facts, the age of the applicant, the period of detention since
09.01.2026 and previous criminal antecedents of the applicant
explained in paragraph 4(a) of the bail application, the fact that no
prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, and that the
trial is likely to take time, therefore, this Court is of the considered
view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular
bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the
Applicant - Sandeep Sahu, involved in Crime No. 421/2025
registered at Police Station- Civil Line, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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
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
Rahul Dewangan
