Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRC/8977/2026 of SAMEER UIKEY Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 11 October 2026
2026:CGHC:44074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8977 of 2026 Sameer Uikey S/o Shri Raju Singh Uikey Aged About 20 Years R/o Village - Belha, Police Station - Pachpedi, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station
CGHC010370282026
2026:CGHC:44074
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8977 of 2026
Sameer Uikey S/o Shri Raju Singh Uikey Aged About 20 Years R/o Village - Belha, Police Station - Pachpedi, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
...Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Koni, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant
For Applicant
: Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate
For Non-Applicant
: Mr. Akash Agrawal, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.10.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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. 172/2026 registered at Police Station : Koni, District : Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 310(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.04.2026, the applicant and other accused persons, namely Abhay, Prakash, and Manoj, hatched a conspiracy, threatened the complainants, namely Sunil
Kumar Yadav and Dashrath Kumar, looted Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- respectively, and fled the spot. Thereafter, the complainants lodged separate reports at Police Station Koni, Crime Nos. 171/2026 and 172/2026 were registered, and the applicant was subsequently implicated during the course of investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of memorandum statements of the co-accused persons. He further submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent arising out of the same episode, wherein he has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench in MCRC/7978/2026. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant has been in jail since 15.05.2026, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the present applicant.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was recovered from the possession of the applicant. Therefore, considering the recovery made from the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Admittedly, applicant was not named in the FIR lodged on 17.04.2026 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 15.05.2026, 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.
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:- (a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (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
(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. 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. -
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE A j i n k y a