MOHAMMAD ARASLAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010307512026 2026:CGHC:38905
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No.7375 of 2026
Mohammad Araslan S/o. Mohammad Zabbir Khan, Aged About 19
Years R/o. - Shantinagar, Patthalgaon, Police Station - Patthalgaon
And District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Of The Police Station –
Jutemill, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
_____________________________________________________
For Applicant :Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Shubham Bajpai, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.09.2026
st
1. The Applicant has preferred this 1 Bail Application under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
SISTLA
NEELIMA
VISHNU
PRIYA
for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in
Digitally signed by
SISTLA NEELIMA
VISHNU PRIYA
Date: 2026.09.03
10:58:34 +0530

2
connection with Crime No.86/2026 registered at Police
Station – Jutemill, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.), for the
offences under Sections 331(4), 305(E), 112(2), 238 and 3(5)
of BNS.
2.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Branch Manager of
Punjab National Bank, PatelpalI Branch, Raigarh, lodged a
written report at Police Station Jutmil stating that after closing
the bank at about 8:15 p.m. on 16.03.2026, he was informed
by Head Constable Ramnath Banerjee between 1:47 a.m.
and 2:00 a.m. on 17.03.2026 that the locks of the bank had
been found broken during checking. Upon reaching the bank,
he found that both locks of the shutter gate and one lock of
the channel gate had been broken, the POE of the CCTV
DVR, network junction box, electrical connection and wires
connected to the CCTV cameras had been cut into pieces
and an attempt had also been made to break open the cash
vault inside the bank. Accordingly, the offences as
mentioned above were registered against the Applicant.
Hence this application.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. He submits that there is no direct evidence connecting
the Applicant with the alleged offence and it cannot be said

3
that the seized contraband exclusively belongs to him. It is
further submitted that the Applicant is an innocent poor
villager and the sole bread earner of his joint family, is in
custody since 29.03.2026, the charge-sheet has already been
filed and the offence is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, with maximum punishment of one year, therefore,
considering the period of custody, further detention of the
Applicant is not justified. It is lastly submitted that nothing
has been seized at the instance of the present Applicant and
the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion,
therefore, he may be enlarged on regular bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail
application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel
for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the
nature of allegations, the fact that the Applicant is in custody
since 29.03.2026, the case is triable by the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, he has already been granted bail in
another crime arising out of the same memorandum, i.e.
Crime No.52/2026 registered at Police Station Gharghoda,
District Raigarh, vide order dated 29.07.2026 passed by this

4
Court in M.Cr.C. No.5586/2026, the trial is likely to take
considerable time and without further commenting anything
upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
7.
Let Applicant- Mohammad Araslan involved in Crime No.
86/2026 registered at Police Station – Jutemill, Tahsil and
District Raigarh (C.G.), for the offences under Sections
331(4), 305(E), 112(2), 238 and 3(5) of BNS be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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/she 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/her
counsel. In case of his/her absence,
without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him/her 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/her presence, proclamation
under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and
the applicant fails to appear before the
court on the date fixed in such

5
proclamation, then, the trial court shall
initiate proceedings against him/her, 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/her
in accordance with law.
8.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the
trial Court concerned for necessary information and
compliance forthwith. Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Priya