ROHIT KUMAR KANKARIYA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010382922026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9324 of 2026
1 - Rohit Kumar Kankariya S/o Shri Asakaran Kankariya Aged About 51
Years R/o Sindhiya Nagar, Mohan Nagar, Behind Mishthan Bhandar,
Durg Police Station Mohan Nagar, Distt- Durg (C.G.)
2 - Anup Rawalani S/o Late Shri Khanchand Rawalani Aged About 55
Years R/o 86/6, East Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Police Station Supela, Distt-
Durg (C.G.) (Particulars Of The Applicant Is Not Properly Mentioned In
The First Page English Cause Title Of The Impugned Order )
... Applicants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mohan Nagar, Distt-
Durg (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate
For Non-applicant
: Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.
/State
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board

2
16/10/2026
1. The applicants have preferred this first bail application under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
grant of regular bail as they has been arrested in connection with
Crime No. 600/2026 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar,
District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections
340(2), 345(3), 347(1) and 336(3) of BNS.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Monish Soni
lodged a written complaint on 24/08/2026 to the effect that the
registration number of his vehicle (car) was being misused by an
unknown person. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was
registered and during the course of investigation, police found that
applicant No. 2 Anup Rawalani was owner of a vehicle Toyota
Yaris bearing Registration No. CG-07-BJ-5256 and he had
borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from applicant No.1 Rohit
Kumar Kankariya and had kept the aforesaid vehicle with as
security. Subsequently, in the year 2023, co-accused Vijay Sen
approached applicant No.1 with a proposal to purchase the
vehicle. Applicant No.1 informed him that the vehicle was not
registered with the RTO. Co-accused Vijay Sen assured applicant
No.1 that he would get the vehicle registered at RTO, Durg, after
obtaining the requisite consent. On such assurance, applicant
No.1 handed over the vehicle to Vijay Sen, who paid Rs.90,000/-
and assured that the remaining amount would be paid

3
subsequently. Thereafter, Vijay Sen took possession of the vehicle
and allegedly used it by affixing a false number plate with the
registration No. of complainant’s vehicle. Thus, the accused
persons committed the aforesaid offence.
3. Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the
applicants, would submit that the applicants are innocent and
have falsely been implicated in the present case. He would further
submit that the vehicle was being used with a forged number plate
by co-accused Vijay Sen and therefore, the applicants herein do
not have any role in commission of the crime in question. He
would further submit that though applicant No. 1 Rohit Kumar
Kankariya has two previous criminal antecedents but they were
registered way back in the year 2019 and applicant No. 2 Anup
Rawalani does not have any criminal antecedents. He would lastly
submit that charge-sheet has yet not been filed and the applicants
are in jail since 20/09/2026 and since conclusion of trial is likely to
take considerable time, therefore, the applicants may be released
on bail.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application and
submit that the present applicants along with co-accused Vijay
Sen have active roles in commission of the aforesaid offence. He
would further submit that applicant No. 1 has two criminal
antecedents registered in the year 2019 which is still pending for

4
adjudication. Thus, he would pray for rejection of the bail
application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of the offence, role of the present applicants
particularly considering that though applicant No. 1 has two
previous criminal antecedents but it was registered way back in
the year 2019 and applicant No. 2 has no previous criminal
antecedents and looking to the fact that charge-sheet has not yet
been filed, the applicants are in judicial custody since 20/09/2026,
and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, without
commenting on the merits of the matter, this Court is inclined to
enlarge the applicants on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed .
7. It is directed that in the event of the applicants executing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in
the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they
shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-
(i) they shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such fact to the Court,
(ii) they shall not act in any manner which will be

5
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and
(iii) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and
every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of
the trial.
8. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding
this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Harneet