[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jitendra Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:9850
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1886 of 2026
1 - Jitendra Kumar Yadav S/o Late Ajit Ram Yadav Aged About 38 Years
R/o House No. L.I.G. 04 Dindayal Colony, Mangala P.S. Civil Line Teh.
Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ram Prasad Yadav S/o Late Anjori Lal Yadav Aged About 65 Years
R/o Podi P.S. Sakari Teh. Sakari District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Applicants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Civil Line Bilaspur
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Non-Applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25.02.2026
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 applicants who have been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 99/2024 registered at Police Station-
Bilaspur District Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section
317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a
written report at Civil Line Police Station, Bilaspur, which was
registered as FIR No. 99/2024 on 21.01.2024. As per the
prosecution, on 14.10.2023, the complainant had boarded a city
bus from Bilha to return to her village, Semra, and after alighting at
Bilaspur New Bus Stand at about 2:30 PM, she was approached by
two unidentified persons riding a motorcycle, who falsely informed
her that her name had been included in a housing scheme and
demanded Rs.5,000/- along with Rs.500/- towards stamp charges,
asking her to come to Nehru Chowk. It is alleged that one of the
accused persuaded her to sit in an auto-rickshaw while the other
followed on a motorcycle up to Nehru Chowk, where at about 3:00
PM one of them pretended to approach the authorities on her behalf
and, on the pretext of arranging the house, demanded money and
ultimately induced her to hand over the gold locket worn around her
neck. Thereafter, the accused persons fled from the spot and did
not return, and upon making inquiries, the complainant realized that
she had been cheated. On the basis of the said report, Crime No.
99/2024 was registered at Police Station Civil Line, District
Bilaspur, and after investigation and finding the involvement of the
accused persons, charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 420
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 317(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Hence, this bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated by the complainant and
the prosecution. It is contended that there is an inordinate and
unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, which creates serious
doubt over the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the
entire case appears to have been concocted at the police station,
as is evident from the police statements, which indicate that the
complainant's statement was recorded even prior to the alleged
date of incident and the statements of other witnesses were
recorded after about two years, clearly suggesting manipulation to
falsely implicate the present applicants. It is also submitted that no
seizure has been made from the personal possession of the
applicants. He further submits that on a single day, i.e., 03.01.2026,
the police registered and proceeded in three different crime
numbers, namely Crime No. 14/2026, 99/2025 and 1527/2025, and
apprehended the applicants in all three cases on the same day on
the basis of an inadmissible memorandum statement of a co-
accused in Crime No. 1527/2025, which itself demonstrates false
implication. It is further submitted that in two out of the three cases,
the applicants have already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court.
He further submits that similarly situated co-accused, namely,
Kanhaiya Lal Soni has also been granted bail by this Court in
MCRC No. 579/2026 vide order dated 24.02.2026. He also submits
that applicant No. 02 is a 65-year-old man and the sole breadwinner
of his family and the applicants are in jail since 04.01.2026, the
charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time
for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the
applicants on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has
been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact
that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court and the
case of the present applicants is identical to that of the co-accused.
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,
nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants
since 04.01.2026, the fact that though the present applicants and
other co-accused were committed the said crime, but other co-
accused, namely, Kanhaiya Lal Soni has also been granted bail by
this Court in MCRC No. 579/2026 vide order dated 24.02.2026, and
the case of present applicants is identical to that of the co-accused
person, further the applicants have three criminal antecedents, out
of the three cases, the applicants have already been granted bail by
this Court in two cases, the charge-sheet has been filed in the
present case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are
entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let
the Applicants - Jitendra Kumar Yadav and Ram Prasad
Yadav, involved in Crime No. 99/2024 registered at Police Station-
Bilaspur District Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section
317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail
on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like
sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect
that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
their counsel. In case of their absence, without
sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against
them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure their presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued
and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against them, in
accordance with law, under Section 209 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are
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 them 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
