SANTOSH BANSOD vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:12553
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 690 of 2026
1. Santosh Bansod S/o Late Kishan Bansod Aged About 45 Years R/o
Village Khaira, Ps Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.)
2. Manish Bansod S/o Santosh Bansod, Aged About 19 Years 1 Month, R/o
Village Khaira, PS Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund
(C.G.)
... Applicants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District
Mahasamund (C.G.)
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
Date:
2026.03.17
11:11:04
+0530
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
... Non-applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
16.03.2026
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 applicants
who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 486/2025
registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
offence under Sections 331(4), 305(a) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 17.11.2025 at about 12:30 A.M.,
the complainant closed his Talkiz compound, parked his car bearing

2
registration No. CG-06-GU-9990 for the night, and went home. At about
6:00 A.M., his brother called him and informed him about the incident of
theft at the Talkiz. It is alleged that Rs. 80,000/- were stolen from the
almirah of the Talkiz and that his car was also stolen.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the essential ingredients
of Sections 331 and 305 are not attracted in the present case. The
applicants have never been convicted of any offence till date. It is highly
improbable that there was no CCTV camera or any kind of alarm installed
in the Talkiz compound. He further submits that the applicants do not
have any kind of business dealing with theft or house trespass. The
prosecution has deliberately failed to explain how and in what manner the
car was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. The
story put forth by the prosecution is doubtful and unreliable. He further
submits that the present applicants each have one criminal antecedent,
which has already been explained in paragraph No. 4(a) of the present
bail application. He further submits that the present applicants have been
in jail since 18.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time,
therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application
and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case
before the competent Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that
the present applicants each have one criminal antecedent, which has
already been explained in paragraph No. 4(a) of the present bail

3
application and also considering the fact that in the present bail
application the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court
and the present applicants have been in jail since, 18.11.2025 and
conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is
of the considered view that the present applicants are entitled to be
released on bail in this case.
7. Let the Applicants – Santosh Bansod and Manish Bansod involved in
Crime No. 486/2025 registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District
Mahasamund (C.G.) offence under Sections 331(4), 305(a) and 3(5) of
the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing
personal bond with two sureties each in 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

4
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 are 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 them 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
Abhishek