JAIRAJ TANDI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010332772026 2026:CGHC:38854
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8164 of 2026
Jairaj Tandi S/o Gangaram Tandi Aged About 20 Years R/o Brahamdehi
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Para, Infront Of Kalimandir Police Station - Khamtarai, District- Raipur (C.G.)
...Applicant
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.09.02
16:41:09 +0530


versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station -
Khamtarai District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant

For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
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.
620/2026, registered at Police Station - Khamtarai District- Raipur
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 309(5),
317(5), 317(2), 126(2) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms

2
Act.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.06.2026 at about 01:40
PM, the complainant namely Nitish Kumar lodged a report alleging
that the applicant, along with other accused persons, committed
robbery of his mobile phone and cash amounting to Rs.1,800/-. It is
further alleged that during the incident, the accused persons assaulted
the complainant with a knife and thereafter fled from the spot. The
complainant lodged the report against the applicant and other
accused persons at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) on
08.07.2026. On the basis of the said report, the police initially
registered an offence under Sections 309(5) and 126(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Subsequently, at the time of
filing of the charge-sheet, Sections 309(5), 317(5) and 317(2) of the
BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were also added. A copy
of the FIR is annexed herewith.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
3.
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the
prosecution story is fabricated and concocted and the applicant has
been arrested along with other accused persons merely on the basis
of the memorandum of co-accused, without there being any
independent and cogent evidence against him; that the alleged looted
articles were neither seized from the actual and exclusive possession
of the applicant nor was he having any knowledge thereof, and the
applicant did not commit any loot as alleged by the prosecution; that
the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of almost one month
from the date of incident, which creates serious doubt regarding the

3
prosecution case; that the bill/receipt of the alleged looted mobile
phone stands in the name of one Amit Kumar, thereby raising a
serious doubt regarding its ownership and its connection with the
present applicant; that there is no material or documentary evidence
establishing that the applicant was in possession of the alleged looted
articles or that he committed the alleged offences; that the applicant
has been in custody since 09.07.2026, is a young person aged about
20 years, has no criminal antecedents and is a permanent resident of
the given address; that the charge-sheet has already been filed, and
therefore, there is no possibility of the applicant interfering with the
investigation or tampering with the prosecution evidence or witnesses;
that co-accused Dinesh Sona has already been granted bail by the
learned CJM, Raipur, vide order dated 13.07.2026; that the applicant
has no specific role in the alleged offences and there is no cogent
evidence connecting him with the commission of the alleged crime;
that the wife of the applicant is pregnant and the family is facing
medical and financial difficulties; and that the applicant undertakes to
appear before the trial Court, not to abscond or tamper with the
prosecution witnesses, and to abide by all the terms and conditions
imposed by this Hon’ble Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for
the applicant prays that the applicant may kindly be released on
regular bail.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been
filed in the present case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-

4
diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and
gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the
fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent
Court, that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and that the
applicant has been in judicial custody since 09.07.2026, coupled with
the fact that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this
Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be
released on bail in the present case.
Let applicant, Jairaj Tandi , involved in Crime No. 620/2026,
7.
registered at Police Station - Khamtarai District- Raipur (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 309(5), 317(5), 317(2),
126(2) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be
released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 him 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

5
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 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
vaibhav