Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23508 (CHH)

SANJAY VAISHNAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/3973/2025 · 2025-05-19

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:22162 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3973 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Vaishnav S/o Daneshwar Vaishnav Aged About 30 Years R/o Niharika Sada Colony Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - Balco Nagar, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.05.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 71/2024 registered at Police Station – Balco Nagar, District Korba (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant made complaint in the Police Station Balco Nagar Korba stating therein that on 17.02.2024, he went to his parents’ home with his family members and stayed there in the night and when they came to his house on 18.02.2024 at 9.00 am, then they found that some persons have stolen some household articles, TV and gold item etc. On the basis of said complaint, the police has registered the crime and filed the charge-sheet before the concerned Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also submits that the applicant has neither committed nor participated in any such act, which may amount to any of the offences, mentioned above and evidence collected by the prosecution is also not prima facie sufficient to hold the present applicant guilty. He further submitted that as per the seizure memo, nothing has been seized from the present applicant and he has been been arrested only on the basis of suspicious. Learned counsel further submitted that as many as five witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court but nothing adverse has been deposed against the present applicant. He also submits that the present applicant has only 03 criminal antecedents, in two cases, he has already been granted bail and the one remaining case is still pending. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 12.09.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of 3 regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant has 03 criminal antecedents, out of which 01 case is still pending, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the the fact that the applicant has 03 criminal antecedent, out of which 01 case is still pending, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender 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 it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sanjay Vaishnav, involved in Crime No. 71/2024 registered at Police Station -Balco Nagar, District Korba (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC, is rejected. 4 8. Office 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 Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.05.21 18:40:00 +0530