Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4909 of 2025 Diyanat Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Amir Hamja Aged About 21 Years R/ o Basant Nagar,ward No. 9, Narayanpur, Tahsil - Bhanupratappur, Distt.- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) (Fathers Name Correctly Mentioned) --- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Bhanupratappur, Distt.- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) --- Non-applicant Along with MCRC No. 4924 of 2025 Diyanat Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Amir Hamja Aged About 21 Years R/o Basant Nagar, Ward No. 9, Narayanpur, Tahsil - Bhanupratappur, Distt.- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) (Fathers Name Correctly Mentioned) --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Bhanupratappur, Distt.- North Baser Kanker (C.G.) --- Non-applicant Along with MCRC No. 4920 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
Diyanat Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Amir Hamja Aged About 21 Years R/ o Basant Nagar, Ward No. 9, Narayanpur, Tahsil- Bhanupratappur, Distt- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) (Fathers Name Correctly Mentioned) RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Versus --- Applicant State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Bhanupratappur, Distt- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) --- Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26/06 /202 5 1. Since the above-mentioned three bail applications arise out of same applicant, they are clubbed and heard together and are being
Decision
disposed of by this common order. 2. These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with three separate cases. The first relates to Crime No. 225/2024, registered at Police Station Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), for offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), and 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and is the subject matter of MCRC No. 4909/2025. The second is Crime No. 29/2025, also registered at the same police station, and is being heard under MCRC No. 4920/2025, while the third is Crime No. 40/2025, registered likewise and pending under MCRC No. 4924/2025; both these 3 latter cases involve offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 324(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. All three cases pertain to the same accused, and these bail applications are being filed accordingly. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present matter pertains to three separate theft incidents in which the applicant has been implicated during investigation. In the first case, complainant Lakhan Lal Patel lodged a report on 05.11.2024 stating that after consuming liquor with a companion near a liquor shop around 4:00 PM, he fell asleep next to his motorcycle. Upon waking, he found the bike’s plug missing and, while walking home around 9:00–9:30 PM near a pan shop, was allegedly assaulted by three unknown individuals who robbed him of his motorcycle, Aadhar card, ration card, and mobile phone. In the second case, a complaint was filed by Vijay Kumar Patel on 10.02.2025 alleging that his motorcycle, which he had parked outside the Khargaon Railway Station, had been stolen by unknown persons. In the third incident, complainant R. Shankar Nayak reported on 06.03.2025 that his motorcycle was stolen from outside Bhanupratappur Railway Station. FIRs were registered in all three matters against unknown persons. During investigation in Crime No. 225/2025, the applicant was arrested based on secret information, and upon recording of his memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, he was implicated in the other two cases as well. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheets were filed in all three cases against the applicant and co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is 4 innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offences, without any direct, cogent, or credible evidence linking him to the commission of the crimes. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested on 29.03.2025 merely on the basis of suspicion, whereas the incident in Crime No. 225/2025 is alleged to have occurred on 04.11.2024. The identification of the applicant through the Test Identification Parade (TIP) is highly doubtful, as the complainant himself has admitted to being under heavy intoxication at the time of the incident, which occurred at night, rendering proper identification after a delay of nearly four months improbable and unreliable. It is further submitted that the applicant’s memorandum statement recorded in Crime No. 225/2025 has been made the sole basis for implicating him in three other unrelated offences, namely Crime Nos. 29/2025, 40/2025, and 55/2025, which were initially registered against unknown persons. Out of these, two cases are listed before this Hon’ble Court today. The applicant has no connection with these cases and has been arraigned only due to the failure of the investigating agency to trace the actual offenders. Furthermore, it is submitted that the medical report in Crime No. 225/2025 reflects only simple injuries on the complainant, which, in the facts and circumstances particularly the complainant’s state of intoxication could have occurred due to an accidental fall. Therefore, the applicant has been unnecessarily and unjustly implicated in all these matters without any substantive evidence, and in such circumstances, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the 5 respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is involved in three separate theft cases, and stolen motorcycles have been recovered at his instance during investigation. His memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act led to recoveries, confirming his role in the offences. The nature of the offences shows a repeated pattern of criminal behavior. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, recovery of stolen property, and potential risk of reoffending, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the document available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, allegations levelled against the applicant and the fact that though the applicant has been implicated in three separate theft cases based on his memorandum statement recorded during investigation in Crime No. 225/2025, but he has been in judicial custody since 29.03.2025 and no longer required for custodial interrogation. The charge sheets in all three matters have already been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also relevant to note that the complainants in all three FIRs had initially reported offences against unknown persons, and the applicant was subsequently implicated only on the basis of alleged disclosure, with recovery shown from him. While the allegations are serious in nature, the applicant has remained in custody for a substantial period, and continued incarceration would 6 amount to pre-trial punishment. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, hence this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant - Diyanat Khan involved in Crime No. 225/2024, registered at Police Station Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), for offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), and 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and is the subject matter of MCRC No. 4909/2025, the second is Crime No. 29/2025, also registered at the same police station, and is being heard under MCRC No. 4920/2025, and the third is Crime No. 40/2025, registered likewise and pending under MCRC No. 4924/2025; both these latter cases involve offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 324(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 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 7 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith.- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan