Allowed

Krish Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026MCRC/7117/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a first bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for four applicants arrested in connection with the theft of a 1.5 HP motor pump and two subsequent registered crimes. The court considered that the applicants had been in jail since 01.07.2026, charge-sheets were filed in all cases, two co-accused had already been granted bail, and trial would take considerable time. Bail was granted on personal bonds of Rs.50,000 each with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including undertakings not to seek adjournments, mandatory presence on specified dates, and consequences for misuse of bail liberty.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to all four applicants on personal bond of Rs.50,000 each with one surety of like amount, subject to specified conditions.

Krish Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010295632026

2026:CGHC:40993

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 7117 of 2026

¶7

Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.22 10:58:43 +0530

¶8

1 - Krish Rajput S/o Raghunandan Rajput Aged About 19 Years R/o Shivpara, Village Purai, Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Durg)

¶9

2 - Raja @ Shankar Sahu S/o Narad Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Shivpara, Village Purai, Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Durg)

¶10

3 - Chetan Lal Ojha S/o Devlal Ojha Aged About 26 Years R/o Shivpara, Village Purai, Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Durg)

¶11

4 - Dushyant Sahu S/o Manohar Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Shivpara, Village Purai, Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Durg) --- Applicants

¶12

versus

¶13

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.)

¶14

--- Non-Applicant

¶15

For Applicants : Shri Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy G.A.

¶16

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY)

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

21/09/2026

¶19

1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.336/2026, registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under

¶20

¶21

Sections 303(2), 112, 3(5) of the BNS.

¶22

2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that an F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg on 30.06.2026 with regard to theft of 1.5 HP motor pump from the Poultry Farm of the complainant. During investigation, the police arrested these applicants and other coaccused persons on 01.07.2026 and subsequently, registered two more Crime Nos.334/2026 and 335/2026.

¶23

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the learned trial Court has granted bail to other two accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the applicants are in jail since 01.07.2026. He would further contend that on the basis of the memorandum of these applicants, the police registered two more crime numbers, as mentioned above. He would further submit that conclusion of trial may take some considerable time. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicants.

¶24

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and contend that these applicants and other accusedpersons committed theft in the Poultry Farm and they have admitted this fact in their memorandum of statements and therefore, the bail application deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶26

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the fact that after seizure of 1.5 HP motor pump, the police registered two more criminal cases against the present applicants, two accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by the learned

¶27

¶28

trial Court, the charge-sheet has already been filed in all the above crime numbers and the fact that the applicants are in jail since 01.07.2026 and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, without further commenting anything on merits of the matter, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicants. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶29

7. Let the applicants be released on bail on each of them furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶31

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶32

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶33

(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under

¶34

¶35

Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶38

Anjani

Krish Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krish Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases