Shekhar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 693/2026 registered at Police Station Sakari, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A), 317(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS").

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.07.2026, when the complainant, Dr. Abhishek Karan, opened his dental clinic situated near Battalion Chowk, he found that the rear shutter was open, the door was broken and the articles inside the clinic were scattered. Upon inspection, he found that one Lenovo laptop, one Samsung mobile phone, one micro motor system and one crown remover kit, collectively valued at Rs. 50,000/-, were missing. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant against unknown persons, the aforesaid offence was registered. During investigation, co-accused Bajrang Sahu, in his memorandum statement, allegedly disclosed that he had committed the theft and had sold the stolen Lenovo laptop to the present applicant for Rs. 10,000/-. Thereafter, on the basis of said information, one Lenovo laptop and its charger, alleged to be stolen property, were seized near Kanan Pendari from the possession of present applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested on 02.09.2026.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and the present applicant has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion and the memorandum statement of the co-accused. He would also submit that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in judicial custody since 02.09.2026. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, he has only one criminal antecedent registered in the year 2025, which has been disclosed in Part-D of the bail application. He would further submit that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of bail and submit that the co-accused Bajrang Sahu, in his memorandum statement, disclosed that he had committed the theft and sold the stolen Lenovo laptop to the present applicant for Rs. 10,000/-. She would further submit that, at the instance of the present applicant, the stolen Lenovo laptop and its charger were seized near Kanan Pendari. Therefore, the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence and is not entitled to be released on bail.

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

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence alleged against the applicant and further considering that charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicant has only one criminal antecedent registered in the year 2025 and his implication is based on the memorandum statement of the co-accused and the alleged seizure of the stolen laptop and its charger, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on regular bail.

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