Facts
On November 17, 2025, approximately 6-7 individuals allegedly entered the residence of complainant Dilip Rathore, impersonating Income Tax officers to conduct an unauthorized search without a warrant.
Source reference: para 2No property was stolen during the incident.
Source reference: para 2An FIR was lodged on December 12, 2025, against unknown persons.
Source reference: para 2The applicant was arrested on December 16, 2025, based on a memorandum statement of a co-accused.
Source reference: para 3The applicant filed this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Source reference: para 1Issues
Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary basis of his implication.
Source reference: paras 3 & 6Law Applied
The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court’s power to grant bail.
Source reference: para 1The charges were registered under Sections 204 (impersonating a public servant), 319(2) (cheating by personation), 331(3) (house-trespass for offense punishable with imprisonment), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Source reference: para 1The court applied general principles of bail jurisprudence, focusing on the absence of criminal antecedents, the period of incarceration, and the filing of the charge-sheet.
Source reference: para 6Reasoning
The Court analyzed the applicant's involvement and noted that he was not named in the initial FIR and was implicated solely through a co-accused’s memorandum statement.
Source reference: para 3The Court observed that the investigation was substantially complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed.
Source reference: para 3, 6Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since December 16, 2025.
Source reference: para 6Given that the trial was likely to be protracted, the Court reasoned that continued detention was unnecessary.
Source reference: para 6Holding
The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of Jitendra Baghel on a personal bond with two sureties.
The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Source reference: para 7(i)The applicant must appear for all court dates or face proceedings under Section 269 of the BNS.
Source reference: para 7(ii)The applicant must be present for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.
Source reference: para 7(iv)Failure to comply with bail conditions or absconding would trigger proceedings under Sections 84 and 209 of the BNSS/BNS.
Source reference: para 7(iii)Original Court PDF
Jitendra Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh [MCRC No. 2228 of 2026 (2026:CGHC:11449)]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in