1 2025:CGHC:6521 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1041 of 2025 1 - Rakesh Chouhan S/o Anaar Singh Chouhan Urf Anwa Aged About 21 Years Caste Kharol, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Morud Marimata, Police Station Tejajee Nagar, District Indore, (Madhya Pradesh) 2 - Deepak Mohite S/o Rohidas Mohite Aged About 28 Years Caste Kharol, R/o Village Kaatkoot Fata, Badwah, Police Station Badwah, District Khargaon, (Madhya Pradesh) 3 - Rajesh Mohite S/o Rohidas Mohite Aged About 28 Years Caste Kharol, R/o Village Kaatkoot Fata, Badwah, Police Station Badwah, District Khargaon, (Madhya Pradesh) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Parpa, (Frezpur), District Bastar, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2025 2 1. This is the first bail application filed under 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 175/2024 registered at Police Station - Parpa, (Frezpur), District Bastar C.G. for the offence punishable under Section 305, 331(4) of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that it is alleged that the applicant along with the co-accused, in a planned manner, entered the Maruti showroom situated at Geedam Road, in the night, with the intention of committing house tresspass, with the intention of committing theft in Maruti Car Showroom, Mahindra Showroom and Toyota Showroom situated at Jagdalpur and prima facie showed the applicant's involvement in the theft of a total amount of Rs. 6,74,792/-. The Police of Police Station Parpa (frezpur), District Bastar has registered the case for an offence punishable under Section 305, 331 (4) of B.N.S., against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure have not been followed by the Police in this case. He also submits that false seizure memo has been prepared by the police only to rope to the present applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 26.10.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicants on regular bail. 3 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicants are having four previous criminal antecedents pending against them for similar nature of offence and thus they are habitual offenders. Further, the bail application of the co-accused, namely, Rohit Rathore has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2025 and the case of the present applicants is similar to that of the co-accused, as such, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the fact that the applicants are having 04 previous criminal antecedents for similar nature of offence, which itself shows that applicants are habitual offenders, further the bail application of the co-accused, namely, Rohit Rathore has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2025 and the case of the present applicants is similar to that of the co-accused 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, though the charge-sheet has been filed and applicant are languishing in jail since 26.10.2024, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants – Rakesh Chouhan, Deepak Mohite and Rajesh Mohite filed under 4 Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 175/2024 registered at Police Station - Parpa, (Frezpur), District Bastar C.G. for the offence punishable under Section 305, 331(4) of the BNS, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manpreet