SURENDRA YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Digitally signed
by AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date:
2026.10.16
10:25:26 +0530
1

CGHC010383312026 2026:CGHC:44735
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9282 of 2026
Surendra Yadav S/o Budharu Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No 36
•
Lakholi Naka Sethi Nagar P S Kotwali Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon
C.G.
... Applicant
versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali District
Rajnandagon C.G.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, P.L
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
15.10.2026
1) The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as
he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 384/2026 registered at
Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for offences
punishable under Sections 309(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
2)
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of the incident,
victim Ramratan Tembhurkar was returning from Bhilai after delivering

2
medicines for his mother. On his way, near R.K. Nagar, Rajnandgaon, his
scooty ran out of petrol and while he was walking alongside it, three
persons riding a blue scooty approached him, pushed him down causing
injuries, and robbed his mobile phone and a gold chain valued
approximately ₹54,000/-. On the basis of the oral report of the victim, an
FIR was registered against unknown persons. During the course of
investigation, the police intercepted the suspects and it was alleged that
applicant was riding the scooter with Aman Khan as pillion, while co-
accused Abhishek Kumhare was also involved, and the snatched mobile
phone was allegedly recovered from him. Consequently, the applicant was
arrested on 20.07.2026 and after completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet has been filed.
3) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the
applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.
He would further submit that the applicant was not named in the FIR and
no Test Identification Parade was conducted by the investigating agency
to establish the identity of the applicant. He would also submit that with
regard to the alleged robbery of the gold chain, the complainant himself in
his statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS clarified that he
had lost his gold chain elsewhere and it was not robbed. He would
contend that co-accused Abhishek has been enlarged on bail by the co-
ordinate Bench in MCRC/8413/2026. He would further contend that the
charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the
applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is in judicial custody since
20.07.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable

3
time; therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant
would vehemently oppose the bail application and submit that the
applicant along with other co-accused persons committed a daylight
robbery, and the snatched mobile phone was seized from the possession
of the applicant, thus the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
However, he admits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the
applicant has no criminal antecedents.
5)
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6) Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent
Court; further no Test Identification Parade was conducted to identify the
applicant, the complainant himself in his statement under Section 180 of
the BNSS stated that the gold chain was lost elsewhere; the applicant has
no criminal antecedents, he is in judicial custody since 20.07.2026, and
the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time.
7) In view of the aforesaid discussion, coupled with the fact that co-accused
Abhishek has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench in
MCRC/8413/2026, this Court, without commenting on the merits of the
case, is inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the
bail application is allowed .
8) It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond
for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction

4
of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on following
conditions :-
(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court,
(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and
(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each
and every date given to him by the said Court till
disposal of the trial.
The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this
bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own
merits.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
A j i n k y a / N i m m i