TUSHAR MALI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010402712026 2026:CGHC:4579
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9636 of 2026
1 - Tushar Mali S/o Mishri Lal Aged About 19 Years (Wrongly
Mentioned As Mishreelal) R/o Village Narval, P.S. Narval, District Ujjain,
Madhya Pradesh
--- Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, Police Station Balod, District
Balod Chhattisgarh
--- Non-applicant
MCRC No. 9796 of 2026
1 - Tushar Mali S/o Mishri Lal Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Narval,
P.S. - Narval, District - Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh.
--- Applicant
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Police Station Arjunda, District -
Balod, Chhattisgarh.
--- Non-applicant
MCRC No. 9905 of 2026
1 - Tushar Mali S/o Mishri Lal Mali Aged About 19 Years R/o Village
Narwal, P.S. Narwal, District Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh.
---Applicant
Versus

2
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O, Police Station Balod, District
Balod (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant
MCRC No. 9670 of 2026
1 - Tushar Mali S/o Mishri Lal, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Narval,
P.S. Narval, District Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh.
---Applicant
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O, Police Station Balod, District
Balod (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant

For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bhaktiyar, Advocate
For Non-applicant
: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.
/State
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
29/10/2026
1. As all these bail applications under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been preferred by the
same applicant which arise out of different crime numbers ie.
Crime Nos. 268/2026; 278/2026; 279/2026 registered at Police
Station- Balod, District Balod (CG) and Crime No. 89/2026
registered at Police Station- Arjunda, District Balod (CG) for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 3(5),
112(2) and 317(2) of BNS, therefore, they are being disposed of
by this common order.

3
2. As per the case of the prosecution, a complaint was made by the
complainant namely Dinesh Yadav to the effect that in the
intervening night of 26/05/2026 and 27/05/2026, some unknown
persons broke into the fuel tanks of the parked trucks and stole
approximately 320 liters of diesel. On the basis of the said
complaint, an FIR was initially registered against unknown
persons for the alleged offences. Thereafter, five more FIRs were
filed by different complainants with regard to commission of the
same offence. During the course of investigation, the police
apprehended accused persons, namely Sonu Balmiki, Dharamraj
Harijan, Tushar Mali (present applicant), and Rahul Chandel, who
allegedly confessed to having committed the theft of diesel. It is
further the case of the prosecution that the aforesaid persons
used to deliver the stolen diesel to co-accused Ganesh Sao, who
in turn allegedly sold the said diesel to co-accused Virendra
Singh.
3. Mr. Shikhar Bhaktiyar, 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 co-accused Virendra Singh, on similar allegations as
the present applicant, has already been enlarged on bail by this
Court vide order dated 07/10/2026 passed in MCRC/8498/2026
and other connected matters. He would lastly submit that the
applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet
has already been filed and the applicant has been in judicial

4
custody since 17/06/2026, and since the conclusion of the trial is
likely to take considerable time, the applicant may be enlarged on
regular bail.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel
appearing for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail
application and submit that the present applicant along with co-
accused persons committed theft of diesel from different vehicles
on different dates. Subsequently, they were arrested on
17/06/2026 and on their instance, 450 liters of diesel was also
seized. Thus, this bail application is liable to be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of the offence and the role of the present applicant, further
considering that applicant has no previous criminal antecedens,
charge-sheet has already been filed and he is in judicial custody
since 17/06/2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take
some time, and also considering that co-accused Virendra Singh
has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated
07/10/2026 passed in MCRC/8498/2026 and other connected
matters, without commenting on the merits of the matter, this
Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
Accordingly, these bail applications are allowed .

5
7. 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 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.
8. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding
these bail applications only, the trial Court shall decide the case
on its own merits.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Harneet