Allowed

Kamal Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2026MCRC/7814/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants regular bail to the applicant, who was not named in the FIR but implicated via co-accused's statements admitting the applicant received looted money. The High Court observed the trial may take time and granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail based on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 executed before the trial Court.

Kamal Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010313862026 2026:CGHC:40786

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 7814 of 2026

¶6

Kamal Thakur S/o Late Mangal Singh, Aged About 26 Years R/o Pandey Para, Balod, District - Balod, C.G.

¶7

	... Applicant versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh	Through Police Station - Balod District -
Balod, C.G.	... Non-applicant
For Applicant	: Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate
For Non-Applicant	: Ms. Ritika Verma, P.L.

¶8

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶9

Order on Board

¶10

18.09.2026

¶11

1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 252/2026 registered at Police Station : Balod, District : Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 127(2), 296, 309(6) and 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶12

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 30.05.2026, the complainant, who is a vegetable vendor was looted by coaccused Somesh Dhruwe and Naveen Yadav on tip of knife. On

¶13

¶14

the same date, complainant lodged the FIR against the coaccused persons. Name of present applicant surfaced in their memorandum statements and he was arrested by police on 30.05.2026.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case as he did not participate in the commission of the afore-stated offence. He further submits that applicant has one previous criminal antecedent u/s 457, 380, 411 and 34 of IPC wherein he was acquitted by the competent criminal Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2023. He also submits that charge-sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail since 30.05.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

¶16

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that though the present applicant was not actively involved in commission of afore-stated offence but his name surfaced in the memorandum statements of the named accused persons who stated that present applicant received Rs. 4,000/- from the proceeds of loot, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

6. Admittedly, applicant was not involved in commission of aforestated offence and he was not named in the FIR lodged on 30.05.2026 but he was implicated only the basis of memorandum statements of the named accused persons. Also considering the fact that applicant has been in jail since 30.05.2026, the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶20

7. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶21

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶22

(b)he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; and

¶23

¶24

The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits.

¶25

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶26

A j i n k y a

¶27

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.18 15:48:45 +0530

Kamal Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Thakur 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