SOHABAT SINGH BHURIYA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010341652026 2026:CGHC:39062

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No.8248 of 2026
Sohabat Singh Bhuriya S/o Mangar Singh Bhuriya Aged About 22
Years R/o Village Geta P.S. Thanda Distt Dhar M.P ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Basantpur, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant
For Applicants : Mr. KN Nande, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
03.09.2026
This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
1.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’)
for grant of regular bail to the Applicant who has been
SISTLA
NEELIMA
VISHNU
PRIYA
arrested in connection with Crime No.80/2025 registered at
Police Station Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) for
Digitally signed by
SISTLA NEELIMA
VISHNU PRIYA
Date: 2026.09.05
10:55:43 +0530

2
the offences under Sections 305(a), 331(4) and 3(5) of BNS.
As per the prosecution, the complainant’s sister, Smt.
2.
Sangeeta Dewangan, a resident of Riddhi-Siddhi Colony,
Rajnandgaon, informed her over phone on 17.02.2025 that a
theft had taken place at her house during the night. Upon
reaching her sister’s house, the complainant found the locks
of the main gate, bedroom and the almirah kept inside the
bedroom broken. It is further alleged that her sister informed
her that the almirah contained one gold necklace, two gold
MS chains, one pair of gold earrings, three sets of gold ear
rings, one gold locket weighing approximately 20 tolas, silver
anklets and cash of about Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-, having
a total value of approximately Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-,
all of which were found missing on checking the almirah,
pursuant to which a report was lodged alleging that unknown
persons had entered the house during the night, broke open
the locks and committed theft of the aforesaid articles. Based
on these allegations, the offences as mentioned above, have
been registered against the present Applicant. Hence, the
present bail application.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. It is submitted that the investigation is complete and

3
charge-sheet has already been filed, however, no direct or
incriminating material has been collected against the
Applicant connecting him with the alleged offence, nor is
there any material to prima facie establish his involvement in
the offences alleged against him. It is further submitted that
the Applicant is in custody since 17.03.2025 and has already
undergone custody for about one year and five months and
that this Court has already granted bail to the Applicant in
MCRC Nos.7742/2026 and 7747/2026 vide orders dated
20.08.2026. It is lastly submitted that the trial is proceeding
at a very slow pace, as out of 7-8 prosecution witnesses, only
one witness has so far been examined, therefore, the
Applicant may be released on bail.
Learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application
4.
and submits that the Applicant is resident of M.P and there
are no previous criminal antecedents against him.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the case diary carefully.
6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel
for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the
Applicant is in custody since 17.03.2025, no previous criminal
antecedents are reported against the Applicant, he has

4
already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC
Nos.7742/2026 and 7747/2026 vide orders dated 20.08.2026
and out of 7-8 prosecution witnesses only one witness has so
far been examined, the trial is likely to take considerable time
for its conclusion and without further commenting anything on
the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion
that it is a fit case to allow the application.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the Applicant is allowed
and it is directed that he be released on bail on his furnishing
a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two local
sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned
Court, subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant/s shall file an undertaking to the
effect that he/they 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/s shall remain present before
the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his/their counsel. In case
of his/their absence, without sufficient cause, the
trial court may proceed against him/them under
Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant/s misuse/s the liberty
of bail during trial and in order to secure his/their
presence, proclamation under Section 84 of
BNSS. is issued and the applicant/s fail/s to
appear before the Court on the date fixed in
such proclamation, then, the trial court shall
initiate proceedings against him/them, in

5
accordance with law, under Section 209 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant/s 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/s 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/them in
accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to
the trial Court concerned for necessary information and
compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Priya