Facts
The applicant, a 19-year-old daily wage labourer, was arrested on 09.01.2026 in connection with Crime No. 360/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur
Source reference: p.2-3The prosecution alleges that on 31.07.2025, the main accused, Sandeep Sahu, requested the applicant to accompany him on a motorcycle, which was subsequently stolen from the Shankar Nagar Post Office area
Source reference: p.2The applicant was implicated primarily based on the memorandum statement of the co-accused, Sandeep Sahu
Source reference: p.2No stolen vehicle or incriminating articles were recovered from the applicant's possession
Source reference: p.2Although the applicant has two prior criminal antecedents of a similar nature, he had been granted bail in both cases (MCRC Nos. 2424/2026 and 2475/2026)
Source reference: p.2The charge-sheet in the present matter has been filed
Source reference: p.2Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for an offence punishable under Section 303(2) of the BNS, 2023, in light of the evidence being limited to a co-accused's statement
Source reference: p.3Law Applied
The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides the High Court with the power to grant regular bail
Source reference: p.1The substantive charge was Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which prescribes punishment for theft
Source reference: p.1The Court considered the principle that a memorandum statement of a co-accused, without corroborating recovery or evidence, may be insufficient to justify prolonged pre-trial detention, especially when the charge-sheet is already filed and the accused has secured bail in prior similar cases
Source reference: p.3Reasoning
The Court evaluated the strength of the prosecution's case, noting that the applicant's involvement was based solely on the memorandum statement of the co-accused, Sandeep Sahu
Source reference: p.3The Court highlighted that no incriminating material or stolen property was seized from the applicant's possession
Source reference: p.3Regarding the applicant’s criminal history, the Court observed that while he had two similar antecedents, he had already been granted bail in those matters by the same Court
Source reference: p.3Considering the applicant's age (19 years), his socio-economic status as a daily wage labourer, and the fact that the investigation was complete with the filing of the charge-sheet, the Court determined that the conclusion of the trial would likely be delayed
Source reference: p.3Therefore, the Court found that continued incarceration was unnecessary
Source reference: p.3Holding
The High Court granted the bail application, holding that the applicant was entitled to release on regular bail
The Court ordered the applicant's release upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court
Source reference: p.4The bail is subject to several conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek adjournments during the evidence stage [p.4]; (ii) he must appear at every trial date or face proceedings under Section 269 of the BNS [p.4]; (iii) failure to appear after a proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS will trigger proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS [p.4]; and (iv) he must be personally present for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS
Source reference: p.5Original Court PDF
KHEVENDRA DAS MANIKPURIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in