SAHIL KUMAR VAGLE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010317582026 2026:CGHC:38834
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8125 of 2026
Sahil Kumar Vagle S/o Mohan Lal Vagle, Aged About 21 Years R/o Ompur,
Rajgamar, Guru Ghasidas Chowk, Chowki Rajgamar, Thana Balco, District
Korba (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Urga, District Korba (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State. : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
Date:
2026.09.02
16:53:06
+0530
Order on Board
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
02.09.2026
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. 351/2026 registered
at Police Station - Urga, District – Korba (C.G.), for the offences
punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023.
2. As per the prosecution case, in brief, the complainant, namely Chhotelal
Gond, had brought the Tata Dagger vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-
12BT-2852, belonging to his brother-in-law, namely Vishnu Singh
Markam. Thereafter, during the intervening night of 18th and 19th June,

2
2026, an unknown person allegedly stole the said Tata Dagger vehicle
bearing Registration No. CG-12BT-2852. Thereafter, the complainant
lodged an FIR against the unknown person, and during the course of
investigation, the police arrested the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an
innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
further submits that the said vehicle was not seized from the possession
of the applicant, but was recovered from an open place. He also submits
that, although the applicant has two criminal antecedents, both cases
have already been disposed of, and the explanations in respect thereof
have been provided in Part D of the present bail application. He further
submits that no recovery of the alleged stolen vehicle was made from the
possession of the applicant, that the applicant has been in custody since
15.07.2026, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time.
Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of
the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already
been submitted before the competent Court in the present case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by learned counsel for the applicant, particularly the fact that the
alleged stolen vehicle was not recovered from the possession of the
applicant but was seized from an open place, that the applicant's two
criminal antecedents have already been disposed of and explanations in
respect thereof have been furnished in Part D of the bail application, the
charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in
the present case, that the applicant has been languishing in jail since

3
15.07.2026, and that the conclusion of the trial may take some more
time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released
on bail in this case.
7. Let the Applicant – Sahil Kumar Vagle , involved in Crime No. 351/2026
registered at Police Station - Urga, District – Korba (C.G.), for the
offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023, 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 his 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

4
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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek