Facts
On 12.08.2025, the priest of Hanuman Mandir filed an FIR against unknown persons regarding the theft of ₹2,000/- from the temple premises
Source reference: para 2During the investigation of Crime No. 367/2025, the applicants, aged 21 and 20 respectively, were implicated based on a memorandum statement of a co-accused
Source reference: para 2, 3The applicants were arrested on 31.08.2025
Source reference: para 3After the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants moved the High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
Source reference: para 1, 3Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail considering their period of incarceration, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the nature of the evidence against them
Source reference: para 1, 6Law Applied
The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail
Source reference: para 1The offences were registered under Sections 331(4) (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking), 305(a) (Theft in dwelling house, etc.), and 3(2) (Punishment for joint liability) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
Source reference: para 1The court also referenced the necessity of imposing conditions for bail as per Sections 269 (Non-appearance in response to order), 84 (Proclamation for person absconding), and 209 (Failure to appear in court) of the BNSS
Source reference: para 7Reasoning
The Court observed that the applicants had been in judicial custody since 31.08.2025
Source reference: para 6Though the State opposed the bail citing three previous criminal antecedents against each applicant, the Court noted that these antecedents had been duly explained by the counsel
Source reference: para 3, 6The Court took into account that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, meaning custodial interrogation was no longer required
Source reference: para 3, 4Finding that the trial was likely to take significant time and considering the youth of the applicants (laborers aged 20-21), the Court determined that further detention was unnecessary
Source reference: para 3, 6Holding
The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of Ravi Nirmalkar and Sumit on personal bonds with two sureties each
The holding was conditional upon the applicants not seeking unnecessary adjournments, appearing personally during key trial stages (framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS), and strictly complying with court attendances to avoid proceedings for bail jump under Section 209 and 269 of the BNS/BNSS
Source reference: para 7Original Court PDF
Ravi Nirmalkar and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh [MCRC No. 1621 of 2026 (2026:CGHC:11025)]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in