SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 15413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DABLU PRASAD GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRC/4654/2026



##PAGE1##

1

Digitally 2026:CGHC:23328

ABHIGYAsigned by

SAXENA ABHIGYA

SAXENA

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 4654 of 2026

1 - Dablu Prasad Gupta S/o- Late Bhola Sao, Aged About 27 Years R/o-

Khendrakala, P.S.- Chhattarpur, District- Palamu, (Jharkhand) (Wrongly

Mentioned In Order Sheet As C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- S.H.O. Police Station- Ramanujganj

District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

15.05.2026

1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to

the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 176/2024

registered at Police Station – Ramanujganj District – Balrampur

Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections

309(6), 310(6), 311, 312 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 & 27 of

Arms Act.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant,

Rajesh Kumar Soni, who runs a jewellery shop situated at Gandhi

Chowk, Ramanujganj, alleged that on 11.09.2024, at about noon,

##PAGE2##

2

certain unknown persons committed robbery at his shop and

looted gold and silver jewellery worth approximately Rs. 2.85

crores along with cash amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/-. In respect of

the said incident, the complainant lodged a written report,

pursuant to which investigation was undertaken by the police.

During the course of investigation, co-accused persons namely

Anand Soni, Monu Soni, Raj Soni, Rahul Mehta, Radheshyam,

Anjali Ekka, and the present applicants were implicated in the

alleged offence. Consequently, FIR was registered against the

applicants and they were arrested for the offences punishable

under Sections 309(6), 310(6), 311 and 312 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms

Act.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case

solely on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused

persons and there is no direct evidence available on record

connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. It is further

submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have already

been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present

applicant stands on identical footing. Learned counsel further

submits that though the co-accused persons have already been

convicted by the learned Trial Court, the present applicant was

shown as absconding, which fact also finds mention in the charge-

sheet. It is submitted that pursuant to the warrant issued by the

##PAGE3##

3

learned Trial Court, the applicant was subsequently arrested.

Learned counsel also submits that the convicted co-accused

persons have preferred Criminal Appeal being CRA No.138/2026

before this Court and in the said appeal, the original Trial Court

record was summoned by this Court. It is also contended that the

said original record is necessary for proceeding further with the

trial against the present applicant and in absence thereof, the trial

cannot effectively proceed. It is further submitted that the

investigation has already been completed, charge-sheet has been

filed and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is

required. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude

and there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or

tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready

and willing to abide by all such conditions as may be imposed by

this Court while granting bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail

application and submits that though the applicant has no criminal

antecedents, he is a resident of Jharkhand and had absconded

during the course of trial, which fact has also been specifically

mentioned in the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that there is

every likelihood of the applicant absconding again if released on

bail and,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top