1 2025:CGHC:16924 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2852 of 2025 Naushad Alam S/o Mansoor Ali Aged About 20 Years R/o Kantabahal P.S. Talsara District - Sundergarh (Odisha ) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Police Station Kunkuri District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 128/2024, registered at Police Station- Kunkuri District - Jashpur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant, Anup Kumar Jindal, lodged a written report stating that in the intervening night between 29.08.2024 and 30.08.2024, some unknown person stole a tyre along with its disc, valued at approximately Rs. 10,000/-, from RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the rear side of his vehicle, a Mahindra XUV 500 bearing registration number CG 04 HM 2655. On the basis of the said report, an offence was registered. Subsequently, during the investigation of another case, i.e., Crime No. 139/2024 at Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and based on the memorandum statement of one Kareem Hussain, the present applicant was arrested in connection with the instant matter. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has neither committed nor participated in any such act, which may amount to any of the offences, mentioned above. He further submits that there has been no incriminating recovery or seizure from the present applicant and he has been arrested only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused Kareem Hussain in another crime and he has no relation to the present crime. He further submits that the present applicant has 06 criminal antecedents which was explained in para 4(a) in this application. He also submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.02.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He also submits that the present applicant has 06 criminal antecedents of the year 2024 under the similar nature which shows 3 that the present applicant is a habitual offender. As such, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case also considering the fact that the applicant has 06 criminal antecedents of the year 2024 under the similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble 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 it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail, accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Naushad Alam, involved in Crime No. 128/2024, registered at Police Station- Kunkuri District - Jashpur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, is rejected at this stage. 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 Rahul Dewangan