PAWAN PATIDAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010286682026 2026:CGHC:38694
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No.7014 of 2026
1 - Pawan Patidar S/o Mogji Patidar Aged About 29 Years R/o P.S.
Gadhi, Distt. Baswada, Rajasthan.
Applicant (s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Amanaka,
Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Respondent(s)
MCRC No.7243 of 2026
1 - Ramsingh Ninama S/o Kaluram Ninama Aged About 49 Years R/o
Ward No.01, Sevna, District Sabaswada Rajasthan.
Applicant (s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Amanaka, Raipur District Raipur C.G.
Respondent(s)

Digitally
signed
by R
NIRALA
For Applicant (s) : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, PL
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board

2
01.09.2026
1. These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail
to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with
Crime No.193/2026, registered at Police Station Amanaka,
District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections
305, 331 (4) & 3 (5) of BNS.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant
lodged a missing report to the concerned police station that on
the date of incident, some unknown persons entered entered in
the wine shop and they committed theft of cash amount of
Rs.7,05,580/- and D.V.R. liquor from wine shop. On the basis of
the report, the Police registered the offence against unknown
persons and after investigation the applicants were arrested on
the basis of memorandum statement.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants
are innocent and have been falsely implicated in crime in
question. It is further submitted that the applicants have been
arrested only on the basis of memorandum statement of other
co-accused persons. He further submitted that the applicants are
in jail since 29.06.2026, the applicant Pawan Patidar has only
one criminal antecedent, whereas the applicant Ramsingh
Ninama has no criminal antecedents, charge sheet has not yet
been filed and trial is likely to take quite long time for its

3
conclusion, therefore, they pray that the applicants be released
on regular bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail
applications of the applicants and submits that there are 5
criminal antecedents and 4 are between 2013 to 2016, whereas
one is of the year 2025 against the applicants, as such they are
habitual offender and thus they are not entitled to be released on
bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the
documents available on record.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, nature of allegation and further considering that the
applicants are in jail since 29.06.2026, the criminal antecedents
against the applicants are old and stale, charge sheet is yet to be
filed and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion,
therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, I am inclined to allow these applications.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail applications of the applicants are
allowed.
8. Let the Applicants – Pawan Patidar and Ramsingh Ninama ,
involved in Crime No.193/2026, registered at Police Station
Amanaka, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 305, 331 (4) & 3 (5) of BNS, be released on bail on
each of them furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties in

4
the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the
following conditions:-
“(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the
effect that 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 applicants shall remain present before the
trial court on each date fixed, either personally or
through their counsel. In case of their absence,
without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed
against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure their presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued
and the applicants fail to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against them, in
accordance with law, under Section 209 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicants 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
applicants 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.”

5
9. 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
Nirala