Facts
The applicant, an 18-year-old male, was arrested on December 8, 2025, in connection with an incident occurring on November 8, 2025.
Source reference: p. 2The complainant alleged that three masked individuals assaulted him with a knife and looted ₹43,000 near his residence.
Source reference: p. 2The applicant was implicated based on the memorandum statement of a co-accused.
Source reference: p. 2A previous bail application (MCRC No. 2555 of 2026) was rejected on March 18, 2026, with liberty to file afresh after the trial court rejected bail following the addition of Section 310(2) of the BNS.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. (referred to as Section 483 of B.N.S. in the order) considering his age, period of detention, and nature of evidence.
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The Court considered Sections 309(6) (Robbery) and 310(2) (Dacoity/Punishment) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Source reference: p. 1-2Procedurally, the application was moved under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Source reference: p. 1The court applied the principle that bail is a discretionary relief based on the nature of allegations, criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of the trial's duration.
Source reference: p. 3It also noted the evidentiary limitation of memorandum statements made by co-accused without independent corroboration.
Source reference: p. 2Reasoning
The Court noted that the applicant is 18 years old and has been in custody since December 8, 2025.
Source reference: p. 3It observed that the applicant has no prior criminal record and that the conclusion of the trial would be time-consuming.
Source reference: p. 3The Court considered the applicant's argument that his implication was solely based on a co-accused's memorandum statement, which lacks evidentiary value without corroboration, and that other co-accused had already been granted bail.
Source reference: p. 2The injuries sustained by the complainant were noted to be simple in nature.
Source reference: p. 2Given these factors, the Court determined that continued detention was not warranted.
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The Court allowed the second bail application and ordered the release of Sanjay Kurrey upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties.
The holding is contingent on specific conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear on all court dates (specifically for framing charges and recording statements under Section 351 of BNSS), and must not misuse the liberty of bail. Any violation of these terms allows the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
SANJAY KURREYvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in