Bail Granted Where Accused Implicated Solely on Co-Accused Statements: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has reinforced the liberty of an individual by granting regular bail where the prosecution's case rested solely on memorandum statements of co-accused without active participation in the main offence. This ruling underscores the judicial skepticism towards evidence derived exclusively from confessionals made in police custody during loot and robbery investigations.

In a proceeding presided over by Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, the court heard the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant sought release following his arrest in connection with a robbery case involving allegations of receiving stolen proceeds, challenging his detention which began shortly after the primary incident.

Court Scrutinizes Implication Based on Secondary Evidence

The Bench took note of the fact that the applicant was not named in the initial FIR and his involvement surfaced only through the statements of named co-accused. The State counsel had opposed the bail, contending that the applicant allegedly received Rs. 4,000/- from the proceeds of the loot. However, the Court observed that the lack of active involvement in the commission of the offence, coupled with the duration of the applicant's stay in jail, necessitated his release.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Admittedly, applicant was not involved in commission of afore-stated 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."

The Court has the following directions:
"(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."

Background

The dispute originated from an incident on May 30, 2026, where a vegetable vendor was allegedly looted at knifepoint by two individuals. While the victim lodged an FIR against the two primary assailants under various sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the applicant's name was subsequently added based on the co-accused's statements. The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 127(2), 296, 309(6), and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The applicant's counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated and highlighted a previous acquittal in a case involving Sections 457, 380, 411, and 34 of the IPC. It was further argued that since the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been in custody since the date of the incident, further detention was unnecessary. The High Court, after perusing the case diary and noting the nature of the evidence, allowed the bail application subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000.

Case Details:
Case No.: MCRC No. 7814 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:40786
Case Title: Kamal Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ritika Verma, P.L.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 17079