Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:47813 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7474 of 2025 Tanmay Malekar S/o Vijay Malekar, Aged About 20 Years R/o Omkarnagar, Nagpur, District - Nagpur, Maharashtra. versus ... Applicant(s) The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, P.S. Khamhardih, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
prima facie sufÏcient to hold the guild of the applicant. He also submits that three of the identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Jaydeep Verma, Rajesh Jhoting and Akash Nonkar have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.07.2025, 15.07.2025 and 29.08.2025 in MCRC Nos.4387 of 2025, 5532 of 2025 and 6292 of 2025, respectively. The applicant is in jail since 05.01.2025, the applicant has two criminal antecedents, which are of the years 2024 and 2025 under the BNS and in the said two cases, applicant is on bail, further charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the allegation against the present applicant is that he, along with unknown associates, committed theft on 05.01.2025 by breaking into the ofÏce of the complainant’s father and stealing a laptop, a mobile phone, and Rs.15,000/- in cash, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has two criminal antecedents of the years 2024 and 2025 under the BNS, 5. 6. 7. 8. 3 as such, he is a habitual offender and his bail application is liable to be rejected. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 05.01.2025, the fact that though the allegation against the applicant that he, along with unknown associates, committed theft on 05.01.2025 by breaking into the ofÏce of the complainant’s father and stealing a laptop, a mobile phone, and Rs.15,000/- in cash, but considering the fact that the three of the co-accused persons, namely, Jaydeep Verma, Rajesh Jhoting and Akash Nonkar have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.07.2025, 15.07.2025 and 29.08.2025 in MCRC Nos.4387 of 2025, 5532 of 2025 and 6292 of 2025, respectively, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the aforementioned co-accused persons, also considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, further charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Let the Applicant-Tanmay Malekar, involved in Crime No. 20/2025 registered at Police Station Khamhardih, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with 4 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 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 certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil
Arguments
Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/09/2025 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. 20/2025 registered at Police Station Khamhardih, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘Bns’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Neha Verma lodged a report on 15.01.2025 alleging that on 05.01.2025 some unknown persons committed theft of a laptop, a mobile phone, and 2 Rs.15,000/- in cash from her father’s ofÏce, on the basis of which an FIR was registered and during the course of investigation, present applicant was arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that no seizure of any incriminating article has been made from the possession of present applicant and the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant is not