Facts
The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 243/2026 at Police Station Khamtarai for allegedly breaking into a warehouse on 06.04.2026 and stealing electrical and hardware items valued at ₹95,000/-
Source reference: para 2The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons; the applicants were subsequently implicated during the investigation and arrested on 13.04.2026
Source reference: para 2, 3The applicants moved for regular bail, contending they were falsely implicated based on suspicion, no recovery was made from their exclusive possession, and co-accused persons had already been granted bail by the Trial Court
Source reference: para 3The State opposed the bail, citing the recovery of incriminating material and the fact that Applicant No. 2 has four prior criminal cases
Source reference: para 4Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the period of incarceration
Source reference: para 1, 6Law Applied
The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail
Source reference: para 1The court applied the principle of parity in bail, where co-accused with similar roles have been released
Source reference: para 3The court referenced Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS regarding the conduct of the accused during trial and Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons
Source reference: para 7Reasoning
The Court observed that while the allegations involved a warehouse theft of approximately ₹95,000/-, the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed
Source reference: para 6The Court noted that Applicant No. 1 had no criminal antecedents and the antecedents of Applicant No. 2 had been explained in the application
Source reference: para 3, 6A significant factor in the Court's reasoning was the period of detention (since 13.04.2026) and the likelihood that the trial would consume substantial time
Source reference: para 6The Court balanced the gravity of the offense against the procedural status of the case and the liberty of the applicants, concluding that further pretrial detention was not warranted provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure their presence during trial
Source reference: para 6, 7Holding
The applicants are entitled to bail subject to furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each and adhering to specific conditions, including: (i) not seeking unnecessary adjournments, (ii) mandatory presence on trial dates, and (iii) personal appearance during framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS
The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of Jain Markam @ Bajrangi and Shera Nagarchi
Source reference: para 7Original Court PDF
JAIN MARKAM @ BAJRANGIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in