[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Surendra Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14380
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
GOURI MCRC No. 2199 of 2026
MUDALIAR
Surendra Yadav S/o Shri Nanhu Yadav, Aged About 51 Years Occupation-
Digitally signed by
GOURI MUDALIAR Business, R/o LIG 1083 Hirapur, P.S. Kabir Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur
Date: 2026.03.27
12:49:37 +0530 C.G.
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Pulgaon (Chowki Anjora),
Distt. Durg C.G.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate.
For : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy.G.A.
Respondent/State
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25/03/2026
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.22/2026 registered at Police Station Pulgaon (Chowki Anjora), Distt.
Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(3), 3(5),
61(2), and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that case originates from a
complaint by Pradeep Kumar Shukla, who operates "Aarohi Goods
Transport". It is alleged that on December 29, 2025, a truck (CG-04-
PR-8522) was loaded with 12.050 metric tons of HB wire and winding
wire from Mittal Industries, Durg, intended for Pune. Further instead of
delivering the goods, the co-accused (truck owner and driver) allegedly
conspired to misappropriate the material using a forged lease
agreement. The investigation alleges the material was sold to a scrap
dealer, Aamir Khan, who then sold it to the applicant (Surendra Yadav)
for Rs.3,62,000. The applicant further sold the material to Om Sai
Industries for Rs.3,80,000. Upon arrest, the police recovered Rs.8,000
cash and a mobile phone from the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit
that the applicant is a bona fide scrap dealer who purchased the
material in the ordinary course of business without any knowledge that
it was stolen or misappropriated and the applicant has a clean record
and no previous criminal history. He would further submit that the
complainant, Pradeep Kumar Shukla, appeared before the lower court
and submitted an affidavit stating he has no objection to the Applicant
being granted bail, confirming the applicant committed no direct
criminal act against him. He would submit that the charge sheet has
been filed in this case, the applicant is in jail since 25/01/2026 and
conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of
bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
and she would submit that charge sheet has been filed in this case
before the competent court and the applicant has no criminal
antecedents.
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 of allegation levelled against the applicant who is a scrap
dealer, further considering the fact that complainant has no objection
for grant of bail to the applicant, period of detention of the applicant
since 25/01/2026, charge sheet has been filed, applicant has no
criminal antecedents and also considering the fact that trial is likely to
take some time for its conclusion, therefore this Court is of the view
that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the
Applicant- Surendra Yadav, involved in Crime No.22/2026 registered
at Police Station Pulgaon (Chowki Anjora), Distt. Durg (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 316(3), 3(5), 61(2), and 317(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 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
for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
gouri
