[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Vinay Prakash Kujur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:17927
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3465 of 2026
Vinay Prakash Kujur S/o Shri Dharmu Kujur, Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village Gajabhdi Police Station, Savargaon, District Gadchirouli
Digitally
(Maharashtra) ... Applicant
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.04.21
12:31:12
+0530
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Aundhi,
Distt. Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Devendra Swarnkar, Advocates.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
20.04.2026
1.
The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under
Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 26/2025, registered at Police
Station : Aundhi, District - Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G) for
the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) of
the BNS 2023.
2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected on
merits by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 21.11.2025 passed in
MCRC No. 8843 of 2025.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Nagesh Arya,
had purchased a Honda Shine motorcycle bearing registration No.
CG-19-BK-6148 from Punam Chand Jain about three years prior to
the incident. On 10.02.2025 at about 4:30 PM, he went to Morchul
Market on his said motorcycle and parked it on the roadside while he
went to purchase some goods. When he returned at about 5:30 PM,
he found that his motorcycle was missing. Suspecting that an
unknown person had stolen the vehicle, he lodged a report at Police
Station Aundhi, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.). On
the basis of the said report, the police registered Crime No. 26/2025
for offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 338, and
336(3) of the BNS, 2023.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the applicant is
in judicial custody since 28.05.2025, and the prosecution has already
filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. It is further
submitted that the prosecution has examined as many as 12
witnesses, including the complainant, therefore, he is entitled to be
released on bail.
5. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application
of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in
the present case.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact
that the applicant's first bail application was rejected on merits, and
further considering that the prosecution has already examined as
many as 12 witnesses and that the applicant has been in custody
since 28.05.2025, coupled with the fact that the conclusion of the trial
is likely to take some time, this Court is of the considered view that the
applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
8. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant - Vinay Prakash Kujur, involved
in Crime No. 26/2025, registered at Police Station : Aundhi, District -
Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G) for the offence punishable
under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) of the BNS 2023, be
released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Vaibhav
