[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Upendra Hathgen vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:17955
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3479 of 2026
Upendra Hathgen S/o Dinesh Hathgen Aged About 27 Years R/o Village
New Mines, Near Old Nagar Panchayat Bhatgaon, P.S. Bhatgaon, Distt -
Digitally
Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.04.21
12:31:12
+0530
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P S Bhatgaon, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal , Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahiling, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
20.04.2026
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.
144/2025 registered at Police Station - Bhatgaon District - Surajpur
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4),
317(2), 3(5), 112 of BNS 2023.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a complaint by the Security In-
charge of SECL Bhatgaon Colliery, the Applicant, along with other co-
accused, entered the SECL workshop and committed theft of 5 PT
boxes, 6 SDL machine bearings, 20 meters of copper cable, and 1
gear box. The police have registered case against the applicant in
crime no. 144/2025 punishable offence under section 305(a), 331(4),
317(2), 3(5), 112 of B.N.S, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
contended that the investigation in the present case has already been
completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent
Court, therefore no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is
required. It is further submitted that a co-accused in the same matter,
namely Rajan Yadav, has already been granted bail by this Hon'ble
High Court vide order dated 04.02.2026, and the case of the present
applicant is similar in nature, hence he is also entitled to the benefit of
bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has been in judicial custody
since 23.10.2025 and has already undergone a substantial period of
detention, which is adversely affecting his mental and physical health.
Moreover, the alleged offences are not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for
its conclusion. Therefore, in such circumstances, continued detention
of the applicant would not be just and proper. The applicant
undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be
imposed by this Hon'ble Court.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has two
previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant
of regular bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, the
period of detention undergone since 07.09.2025, and the fact that a
co-accused in the same matter, namely Rajan Yadav, has already
been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
04.02.2026 in MCRC No. 1200 of 2026, coupled with the fact that the
charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and
the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court
is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on regular
bail.
7. Let the Applicant - Upendra Hathgen, involved in Crime No.
144/2025 registered at Police Station - Bhatgaon District - Surajpur
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4),
317(2), 3(5), 112 of BNS 2023, be released on bail on his 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 his 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
Vaibhav
