[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Vijay Yadav @ Dhannu Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:10262
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1925 of 2026
Vijay Yadav @ Dhannu Yadav S/o Shivraj Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o
Dhanuharpura, Sindhi Mohalla, Purani Basti, Rani Road, Near Jhulelal Mandir,
Korba, Police Station- Korba, District - Korba, C.G.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Janjgir
(Chowki Naila) District - Janjgir Champa, C.G.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Shreshtha Gupta, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally
signed by
PREETI
PREETI
KUMARI
KUMARI
Date: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
2026.02.28
10:48:21
+0530
Order on Board
27.02.2026
1.
The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail,
as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 553/2025,
registered at Police Station - Janjgir (Chowki Naila) District - Janjgir
Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4),
305(a), 62 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sahnita, 2023.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 13.06.2025, after closing the SBI Bank,
the present complainant, Ravi Sharma, posted as Chief Manager of SBI
Bank (Naila Branch), left the bank premises. On 16.06.2025, it was
discovered that the bank lock had been broken and the articles inside
were found scattered. An FIR was lodged against unknown persons.
During the course of investigation, the CCTV footage allegedly showed
two unknown persons attempting to commit theft. Thereafter, on the basis
of information received from an informer, the present applicant and one
juvenile were taken into custody and were alleged to have committed the
aforesaid offence. The applicant was arrested on 25.06.2025 and has
been in judicial custody since then. The charge-sheet bearing No.
649/2025 dated 18.09.2025 has already been filed before the competent
Court. Hence, the present application is being filed for grant of bail.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further
submits that the complainant himself has stated in the complaint that no
cash was stolen, which forms part of the complaint as well as the
statement made before the Investigating Authority. It is also contended
that there is a delay of three days in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel
further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the
applicant has been in judicial custody since 25.06.2025. It is argued that
the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. Therefore, on
these grounds, learned counsel prays that the applicant be enlarged on
bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application
and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case.
She further submitted that the applicant have two previous criminal
antecedents of the year 2020 and 2024. Therefore, the applicant is not
entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact
that the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant has two previous
criminal antecedents of the year 2020 and 2024, and he is in jail since
25.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this
Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail
in this case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant -
Vijay Yadav @ Dhannu Yadav, involved in Crime No. 553/2025,
registered at Police Station - Janjgir (Chowki Naila) District - Janjgir
Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4),
305(a), 62 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sahnita, 2023, 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.
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
Preeti
