1 2025:CGHC:14597 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2397 of 2025 Bhangu Dawar S/o Kaloo Dawar Aged About 25 Years R/o Narwali, Police Station Tanda, District Dhar, (M.P.). ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 272/2024, registered at Police Station : Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 of the IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant namely Mayuresh Sonal lodged a report at Bhilai Nagar Police Station on June 17, 2024, stating that he had gone to Hyderabad with his family on June 14, 2024, and was scheduled to return home on June 17. However, at around 7:10 am, his neighbor Nishant Jain KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 informed him that his house door was opened and sent him a photo of the open door. Mayuresh then realized that his house had been burgled. The stolen property included gold and silver jewelry, such as gold rings, earrings, chains, lockets, necklaces, mangalsutras, bangles, gold coins, nose rings, and headbands, weighing around 350 grams. Further, silver items like anklets, necklaces, coins, notes, bichhiyas, waistbands, and silver pearl lockets, along with utensils, cups, glasses, diyas, fish, elephants, fluet and lota, weighing around 2000 grams, were also stolen. The total value of the stolen property is approximately ₹24 lakhs. Thereafter, the case has been registered against an unknown accused under Crime No. 272/2024, Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). During the course of investigation, the present applicant has made accused and thereafter arrested.¹ 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there are two previous criminal antecedents except the present one registered against the applicant. He further submits that he has neither committed nor participated in any crime and the in the present case, only Rs.5000/- cash was recovered from the possession of the present applicant which to belongs to applicant and nothing has been collected by the police against the present applicant. He further submits that the name of the present applicant is not mentioned in the F.I.R and the FIR has been registered in the name of an unknown person, the applicant has been arrested only on the basis of suspicion which is not permissible and the applicant 3 is in jail since five months ago and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents except present one for the similar offence. He further submits that the applicant has committed theft in the complainant’s house and had stolen i.e. gold and silver jewelry, such as gold rings, earrings, chains, lockets, necklaces, mangalsutras, bangles, gold coins, nose rings, and headbands, weighing around 350 grams. Further, silver items like anklets, necklaces, coins, notes, bichhiyas, waistbands, and silver pearl lockets, along with utensils, cups, glasses, diyas, fish, elephants, fluet and lota, weighing around 2000 grams, were also stolen. The total value of the stolen property is approximately ₹24 lakhs. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. From perusal of the case-diary, it appears that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents except present one for the similar offence and further the fact that the applicant has committed theft in the complainant’s house and had stolen i.e. gold and silver jewelry, such as gold rings, earrings, chains, lockets, 4 necklaces, mangalsutras, bangles, gold coins, nose rings, and headbands, weighing around 350 grams. Further, silver items like anklets, necklaces, coins, notes, bichhiyas, waistbands, and silver pearl lockets, along with utensils, cups, glasses, diyas, fish, elephants, fluet and lota, weighing around 2000 grams, were also stolen. The total value of the stolen property is approximately ₹24 lakhs. However, there is only Rs. 5000/- cash was recovered from the applicant’s possession which belongs to applicant as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant but on a pointed query being made by the counsel for the applicant, the said fact which has been stated hereinabove, in which paragraph of the bail application he has been mentioned, he failed to provide the same, looking to the seriousness of this case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant namely Bhangu Dawar, Crime No. 272/2024, registered at Police Station : Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 of the IPC, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal