LOKESH NAG vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1 / 4

CGHC010391712026 2026:CGHC:45082
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PAWAN
KUMAR
JHA
Digitally signed by
PAWAN KUMAR
JHA
Date: 2026.10.27
16:01:09 +0530
MCRC No. 9897 of 2026
Lokesh Nag S/o Sanjay Nag Aged About 22 Years R/o Gram Pataud P.S.
•
Kanker District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer S H O. P.S. Sarona,
District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate with Mr.
Shalvin Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD

26/10/2026
1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 4/2025 registered at Police Station –
Sarona, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for offence punishable under
Section 303(2) and 3(5) of BNS.
2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 21.12.2025, complainant, Manoj Soni, a
supervisor employed with M/s Devshri Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., Dhamtari, lodged a
written complaint at Police Station Sarona, alleging that his firm was executing
work on the 132 KV Kanker–Nagri double-circuit transmission line pursuant to
instructions from CSPTCL. On 05.03.2025, 16 ACSR Panther conductor wire
drums were received from CSPTCL, Raipur, of which nine were placed along

2 / 4
the roadside between Malgaon and Barkai villages and seven between Barkai
and Sarvandi villages. Four drums were installed between Barkai and
Sarvandi, but the work remained suspended from 17.06.2025 due to the rainy
season and standing crops. During an inspection on 03.12.2025, the wires
were found intact; however, on 06.12.2025, one drum containing
approximately 1,995 kg of ACSR Panther conductor wire, valued at ₹3.5 lakh,
was found missing from the roadside between Malgaon and Barkai. Despite a
search, the missing wire could not be traced. Based on the report,
aforementioned crime was registered against unknown persons. During
investigation, the Cyber Cell, Kanker, traced accused Shubham Yadav
through tower dump analysis. Upon interrogation, he allegedly disclosed that
he and co-accused Lokesh alias Pappu, Bharat Singh Sinha had stolen high-
tension conductor wire on three occasions using a Bolero pickup vehicle
belonging to Shabbir Shekhani. They allegedly concealed the stolen wire
pieces beneath a staircase at a complex in Govindpur, Kanker, by enclosing
them within a brick wall. Accused Shubham Yadav was arrested and
thereafter applicant was also arrested.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that according to the case of
prosecution, based on the memorandum statement of co-accused Shubham
Yadav, the conductor wire has been seized from the complex of co-accused
Sabbir Shekhani, who is owner of that complex. He contended that applicant
was working as driver of Shabbir Shekhani and based on the memorandum
statement of co-accused, applicant has been made accused. He also
contended that in the application, applicant has disclosed one another crime
registered against him of the year 2026 of similar nature of offence of stealing
of generator, the said generator is also found from the complex of Shabbir
Shekhani, employer of applicant and therefore based on the memorandum
statement of co-accused, applicant has been made accused in that crime
also. Except these, no other crime is registered against him. Applicant is in jail

3 / 4
since 25.07.2026, charge-sheet has been filed, trial may take some time,
hence, he may be enlarged on bail. He also pointed out that co-accused
Bharat Sinha has been granted bail in MCRC No. 9208/2026 vide order dated
30.09.2026.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned
counsel for applicant. He would further submit that applicant is involved in two
crimes of similar nature. He however does not dispute the submission of
learned counsel for applicant that applicant is having no criminal antecedent
except one as mentioned above and that co-accused Bharat Sinha has been
enlarged on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of
allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties, without commenting
anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.
7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed . It is directed that the applicant shall
be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
25,000/- with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the
₹
conditions that-
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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 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.
(d) 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

4 / 4
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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
( Parth Prateem Sahu )
pwn
JUDGE