SOURYA KAROLIYA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010399682026 2026:CGHC:46475
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9661 of 2026
 Sourya Karoliya S/o Sandeep Karoliya Aged About 19 Years R/o
In Front Of Dream Palace, Near Lic Office, Sarkanda, Bilaspur,
Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (In Jail)
... Applicant
versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Sho, Police Station Sarkanda,
Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate
For Non-Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
03.11.2026
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. 1122/2026 registered at Police Station : Sarkanda, District :
Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 308(5),
296, 351(3), 317(4) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Devi
Prasad Singh, lodged an FIR alleging that his granddaughter
Sameeksha was blackmailed and threatened by the co-accused
persons, namely Ayush Yadav, Prince Sahu, Adarsh Sharma, and
Priyam Sharma, who coerced her into handing over Rs. 14.50
lakhs in cash and approximately 450 grams of gold jewellery. The
name of the present applicant surfaced in the memorandum
statements of the named accused persons detailing his role in the
aforesaid offence. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested on
02.08.2026, and cash amounting to Rs. 48,500/-, stated to be part
of his commission, was recovered from his possession.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent, and his name finds no mention either in the FIR or in the
original written complaint. He has been falsely implicated in the
present case solely on the basis of the memorandum statements
of the named co-accused, which are highly doubtful. It is further
submitted that the allegation against the applicant is confined to
assisting the named accused in disposing of the jewellery to local
jewellers, which is a matter to be substantiated during trial; mere
recovery of Rs. 48,500/- cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive
proof of his complicity. It is also submitted that although the
applicant has one prior criminal antecedent of a similar nature, the
same has been satisfactorily explained in Part-D (Criminal
Antecedents) of this application. Considering that the charge-

3
sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in judicial
custody since 02.08.2026, and the trial is likely to take
considerable time, he prays for the grant of regular bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the applicant is alleged to have
assisted the named accused in disposing of the jewellery to local
jewellers and he has one criminal antecedent i.e. Crime
No.373/2026, registered at P.S. Sarkanda. He further submits that
considering the specific allegations, the recovery effected from the
applicant and the criminal antecedent, the applicant is not entitled
to the benefit of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Although prosecution alleges that the present applicant facilitated
the sale of jewellery to local jewellers and to have received Rs.
1,50,000/- as commission and cash amounting to Rs. 48,500/-
has been seized from him, however, there is no allegation that he
directly participated in threatening or intimidating the victim or in
obtaining the alleged money and jewellery from her. His name
also does not find mention in the original written complaint or FIR
and he has remained in custody for considerable period. The
investigation has substantially progressed and the applicant is no
longer required for custodial interrogation. Therefore, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the

4
nature of allegation, the period of custody and the role attributed
to him and the overall material available on record, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged
on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed . It is directed that in
the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he
shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-
(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation
by the police officer as and when required;
(b)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; and
(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.
The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of
deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall
decide the case on its own merits.
- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
A j i n k y a