D. Santosh Rao S/o Late D. Rama Rao, Aged About 43 Years R/o Sarkas v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:39144 NAFR MCRC No. 6177 of 2025 D. Santosh Rao S/o Late D. Rama Rao, Aged About 43 Years R/o Sarkas Maidan, Station Ward Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar -Bhatapara, C.G. (Wrongly Written In The Impugned Order As District Balodabazar) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Advocate along with Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/08/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 60/2025 registered at Police Station- Bhatapara City, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 305(a) and 331(2) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.01.2025, around 4 2 pm, the complainant went to Bhanupratappur and at that time no one was there in his house & on the next day, it was informed to the complainant that the lock of his house has been broken and when he returned back by 6pm, he saw that the lock of his house was broken and there is a theft of 2 coins, gold locket, gold ring & cash amount of Rs 20,000/- hence in total amount of Rs 45,000/-. Thus, an FIR was registered against the unknown for the offence u/s 305(a), 331(2) of BNS. On the basis of memorandum statement of other-accused person, the applicant has been arrested by the Police of P.S. Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara on 04.03.2025 in Crime No. 60/2025 for an alleged offence u/s Section(s) 305(a), 331(2) of BNS. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that no ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant is present and the case of the prosecution is totally baseless and frivolous. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and the FIR has been registered against the head as "unknown" & the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further there is a delay in FIR for which no explanation has been offered and there is no seizure from the present applicant. The main accused in the present case is Ajay Rathore, who in his memorandum statement has stated that the stolen silver coin and gold locket has been given to the present applicant which was lost by him and hence, the present applicant has no role to play in the theft. He also submits that the 3 applicant is arrested only on memorandum statement of other co- accused person and the applicant has four criminal antecedents out of which in two cases, the applicant has been acquitted and rest two are still pending and the applicant is in jail since 04.03.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the co-accused was committed theft of two coins, gold locket, gold rings and cash of Rs. 20,000/- hence total amount of Rs. 45000/-from the complainant’s house when the complainant went outside from his house and he sold to the present applicant. However, there is no recovery made from the present applicant the same was recovered from the co- accused further it appears that the involvement of the applicant, appears to be reasonable in this case and so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, the applicant has four criminal antecedents out of which at present, two cases are still pending against him as such he is a habitual offender, hence he is not entitled for grant of bail. 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 levelled against the applicant and the fact that the co-accused was committed theft of two coins, gold locket, gold rings and cash of Rs. 20,000/- hence total amount of 4 Rs. 45000/-from the complainant’s house when the complainant went outside from his house and thereafter, he sold to the present applicant. However, there is no recovery made from the present applicant the same has been recovered from the co-accused and the present applicant made accused on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused further so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, the applicant has four criminal antecedents out of which in two cases, the applicant has been acquitted and at present, two cases are still pending against him and he is in jail since 04.03.2025, the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicant – D. Santosh Rao, involved in Crime No. 60/2025 registered at Police Station- Bhatapara City, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 305(a) and 331(2) of 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 5 his 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. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dirurt fo forthwith. S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice - Kunal