[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Anil Kale vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13013
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1683 of 2026
Anil Kale S/o Shri Apaso Kale Aged About 44 Years R/o Village
Ramsagar Para, Korba, Police Station- Korba, District- Korba (C.G.)
--- Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir, District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
--- Non-Applicant
Along with
MCRC No. 2067 of 2026
Sameer Chauhan S/o Shri Kishan Lal Chauhan Aged About 20 Years R/o
Village Teena Dafai Ratakhar, Korba, Tahsil Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.)
--- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
--- Non-Applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
18.03.2026
1.
Since the above-mentioned two first bail applications arise out of
same incident, same crime number and registered at same police
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
station, they are clubbed and heard together and are being
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN disposed of by this common order.
2. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Application under
Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with
Crime No. 527/2025, registered at Police Station : Champa,
District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 331(4), 305(A), 317(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Dhaniram
Devangan lodged a report at Police Station Champa on 08.11.2025
stating that on 07.11.2025 he had gone to attend a Dashakarma
ceremony at his brother's house in village Champa, and upon
returning home at about 10:30 PM, found that the lock of the main
door and the door of the पूजा room were broken and various gold
and silver ornaments, cash and other articles were missing, which
had been stolen by unknown persons. During the course of
investigation, co-accused Yogesh Sahu @ Tingi, in his
memorandum statement, disclosed that he along with other co-
accused persons had committed the theft and subsequently
disposed of the stolen jewellery. It is further alleged that co-
accused Mohan Minj had sold the stolen ornaments to applicant
Anil Kale, a goldsmith, who purchased the same for Rs.65,000 and,
on the basis of his memorandum, certain melted gold and silver
articles along with tools used for melting were seized from his
possession. It is also alleged that the other applicant Sameer
Chauhan, in his memorandum statement, admitted his involvement
in the said incident. On the basis of the aforesaid material collected
during investigation, both the applicants have been implicated in
the present case, and after completion of investigation, the charge
sheet has been filed against them. Hence, thess bail applications.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the applicants
are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case
and have been arrested merely on the basis of suspicion without
any credible evidence linking them to the alleged offence. It is
contended that applicant Anil Kale is a goldsmith by profession at
Korba, primarily engaged in repairing jewellery and not in its
purchase or sale, and his implication is misconceived, moreover,
his wife is a cancer patient undergoing treatment, and his
continued incarceration is causing severe hardship to his family. It
is further submitted that though two criminal antecedents have
been shown against Anil Kale, he has already been acquitted in
one case and the other is still pending consideration. In respect of
applicant Sameer Chauhan, it is submitted that he is a young boy
aged about 20 years, and nothing incriminating has been seized
from his possession, and his implication is based solely on
suspicion. It is further submitted that both the applicants are in jail
since 07.12.2025 and 19.01.2026 respectively, the charge sheet
has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take some time for its
conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non-
applicant/State opposes the bail applications and submits that the
charge-sheet has been filed in the present cases. She further
submits that both the applicants are involved in a serious offence of
house-breaking and theft, and their implication is based on material
collected during investigation, including memorandum statements
and recovery of incriminating articles. It is contended that applicant
Anil Kale, being a goldsmith, had knowingly purchased and melted
the stolen gold and silver ornaments, and tools and melted articles
have been seized from his possession, clearly indicating his
involvement in disposal of stolen property. It is further submitted
that applicant Sameer Chauhan has also admitted his involvement
in the offence in his memorandum statement, which reflects his
participation in the crime. Considering the gravity of the offence, the
manner in which the stolen property was disposed of, the
applicants are not entitled for grant of bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of
allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, this
Court finds that though the applicants have been implicated in the
offence and certain recoveries, including melted gold and silver
articles and other materials, have been effected at the instance of
applicant Anil Kale, and the memorandum statements also indicate
the alleged involvement of the applicants, however, the entire
evidence against them is primarily documentary and based on
recovery which has already been effected. Both the applicants are
in judicial custody since 07.12.2025 and 19.01.2026 respectively,
the charge sheet has been filed, and and conclusion of the trial may
take some time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, this Court is of the considered view that the present
applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail in theses
cases.
8. Let the Applicants - Anil Kale and Sameer Chauhan, involved in
Crime No. 527/2025, registered at Police Station : Champa,
District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 331(4), 305(A), 317(2), and 3(5) 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.
9. 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
