1 2025:CGHC:13698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2272 of 2025 1. Mohammad Irshad Ansari S/o Ayyub Ansari Aged About 38 Years R/o Yashodhara Nagar Nagpur Police Station Yashodhara District- Nagpur (Maharastra) 2. Dheeraj Reddi S/o Anil Reddi Aged About 35 Years R/o Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Nagpur Police Station Panchpaoli District - Nagpur (Maharastra) 3. Ghanshyam Pal S/o Madan Pal, Aged About 34 Years R/o Yashodhara Nagar Nagpur Police Station Yashodhara District- Nagpur (Maharastra) (Description Of Applicants Are Mentioned As Per Charge Sheet ) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer Police of Police Station Simga District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Non-applicants/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.03.2025 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 16/2025 registered at ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.03.22 16:30:23 +0530 2 Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 325, 3(5), 111, of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 of the Chhattisgarh Krishak Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam and 48 and 52 of Pashu Parivahan Adhiniyam and Section 49, 49(A), 50, 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act and Section 39, 192, 146/196, 3/181, 56/192, 184, 65/195 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 2. According to the brief facts of the prosecution's case, on 08.01.2025, the police received secret information that cows and buffaloes were being transported to a slaughterhouse in a truck. Based on this information, the police intercepted the vehicle and found three individuals traveling in it, who identified themselves as the present applicants. The applicants were subsequently arrested for allegedly committing offenses. Upon inspecting the truck, the police recovered a total of 40 calves, of which 32 were alive and 8 were found dead. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that it is pertinent to mention at this juncture that applicants No. 1 and 2 obtained a ride because they were well-acquainted with the person driving the vehicle, namely applicant No. 3. Since all three resided in the state of Maharashtra, it was convenient for applicants No. 1 and 2 to travel with applicant No. 3. He also submits that applicant No. 1 has no pending cases against him, while applicant No. 2 has only 01 pending criminal antecedent of a similar nature. He also submits that the applicants are in jail since 08.01.2025, conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submits that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that though the applicant No. 01 has no criminal antecedent pending against him, applicant No. 02 has 01 criminal antecedent of the similar nature, whereas, the applicant No. 03 has 03 criminal antecedents of the similar nature, shows that the applicants are habitual offenders, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, that there is 03 criminal antecedents under the similar nature, which shows that the applicant No. 03 is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant No. 03 on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No. No. 03 – Ghanshyam Pal, involved in Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 325, 3(5), 111, of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 of the Chhattisgarh Krishak Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam and 48 and 52 of Pashu Parivahan Adhiniyam and Section 49, 49(A), 50, 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act and Section 39, 192, 146/196, 3/181, 56/192, 184, 65/195 of the Motor Vehicle Act, is rejected. 4 7. Whereas there is no criminal antecedents against applicant No. No. 01 and only 01 criminal antecedent against the applicant No. 02, namely, Mohamad Irshad Ansari and Dheeraj Reddi, and they are in jail since 08.01.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant No. 01 and 02 are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No. 01 and 02 - Mohammad Irshad Ansari and Dheeraj Reddi involved in Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 325, 3(5), 111, of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 of the Chhattisgarh Krishak Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam and 48 and 52 of Pashu Parivahan Adhiniyam and Section 49, 49(A), 50, 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act and Section 39, 192, 146/196, 3/181, 56/192, 184, 65/195 of the Motor Vehicle Act, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under 5 Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 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 Abhishek