[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Aslam Khan vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11439
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2260 of 2026
Aslam Khan S/o Shri Azim Khan, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Village Chhuipali,
Ward No. 12, Police Station And Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund C.G.
VAIBHAV
SINGH
... Applicant
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
Date: 2026.03.11
10:37:41 +0530
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Singhoda, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
10.03.2026
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.96/2025
registered at Police Station - Singhoda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
for the offences punishable under Sections 305(E), 287, 3(5) of the
BNS 2023 and Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 23.12.2025 at about 11:00 PM, the
complainant Avinash Dubey, Food Inspector, Saraipali, along with
police staff and Nagar Sainik, was on patrol duty within the jurisdiction
of Police Station Singhoda to prevent illegal transportation of paddy.
During the course of patrolling, they allegedly received secret
information that some unknown persons were illegally refilling LPG gas
cylinders at a goat shed farm house situated in front of Navjeevan
Hospital, Chhivrakuta, on NH-53, with the intention of earning unlawful
profit. Acting upon the said information, the police party reached the
spot and allegedly found that LPG gas was being illegally transferred
from Indane capsule trucks into small and big domestic cylinders
through nozzle pipes without following the prescribed safety norms. On
seeing the police party, the accused persons allegedly fled away from
the spot taking advantage of darkness towards the nearby forest area,
leaving behind the incriminating materials. During inspection of the
spot, six capsule trucks, nozzle pipes, a large number of empty and
filled LPG cylinders, and an electronic weighing machine were found
and seized. The total value of the seized property was assessed at
approximately ₹93,00,000/-. On the basis of the written report lodged
by the Food Inspector, Crime No. 96/2025 was registered at Police
Station Singhoda against unknown persons for the offences punishable
under Sections 287, 305(e), 221, 351(2) and 3(5) of law.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and was arrested by the police in
connection with the alleged offence. It is contended that the applicant
has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement
of co-accused Prakash Gupta, who is alleged to be the main accused
in the case, and there is no independent, direct or corroborative
evidence collected by the prosecution to connect the applicant with the
alleged offence. It is further submitted that the FIR was initially
registered against unknown persons and the name of the present
applicant does not find place therein. The applicant was neither
apprehended from the spot nor has any incriminating article been
recovered from his possession. Learned counsel submits that the
applicant is merely a labourer working under co-accused Prakash
Gupta, who is the owner of the farm house where the alleged incident
is said to have taken place, and the applicant has no ownership,
possession, control or supervisory authority over the said premises. It
is also contended that the alleged offences are punishable with
imprisonment up to seven years and, in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar,
unnecessary arrest should be avoided and the safeguards prescribed
under law are required to be followed, which have not been adhered to
in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant
is the sole breadwinner of his family and his prolonged incarceration is
causing severe hardship to his family. It is also submitted that the
applicant is suffering from asthma and has faced serious respiratory
problems during his period of custody, therefore he requires proper
medical treatment. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is a
permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and
there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the
prosecution witnesses. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish bail
bond and surety to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposes the bail
application of the applicant.
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, the
nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present
applicant, and the fact that the co-accused, namely Prakash Gupta has
already been granted bail vide order dated 28.02.2026 passed in
MCRC No. 609 of 2026, and further considering that the charge-sheet
has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant
have been in judicial custody since 04.02.2026, and that the conclusion
of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view
that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case.
7. Let applicant, Aslam Khan, involved in Crime No.96/2025 registered
at Police Station - Singhoda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the
offences punishable under Sections 305(E), 287, 3(5) of the BNS 2023
and Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, be
released on bail on furnishing 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
vaibhav
