Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2657 (CHH)

HARISH BAGH @ KALU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/243/2025 · 2025-01-10

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:1786 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 243 of 2025 1 - Harish Bagh @ Kalu S/o Pawan Bagh Aged About 19 Years R/o Satnami Para, Jhanda Chowk, P.S. Civil Line, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Amanat Ali @ Aman S/o Afsar Ali Aged About 19 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Near Pandri Gurudwara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.01.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants arrested in connection with Crime No. 394/2024 registered at Police Station – New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, BNS). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant has made RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 written complaint before the concerned Police Station that on date of incident the unknown persons have entered in the house of the complainant and committed theft of golden, silver and cash amount of Rs. 25,000/- and bag from his house. Based upon such complaint, the Police has registered the said offence against the applicants and other accused persons. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is submitted that the applicants are in jail since 11.09.2024, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that the applicants along with the co-accused persons are said to have entered into the house of the complainant and committed theft of golden, silver and cash amount of Rs. 25,000/- and bag from his house, and the said stolen articles are seized from the accused persons. It has been further submitted that there is one criminal antecedent of the applicants of similar nature of the year 2024 which is pending. As such, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the co-accused persons are said to have entered into the house of the complainant and committed theft of 3 golden, silver and cash amount of Rs. 25,000/- and bag from his house, and the said stolen articles are seized from the accused persons, further there is one criminal antecedent of the applicants of similar nature of the year 2024 which is pending, which goes to show that the applicants are habitual offender and he has misused the bail granted to them 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 it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, this bail application of applicants – Harish Bagh @ Kalu and Amanat Ali @ Aman involved in Crime No. 394/2024 registered at Police Station – New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 and 3(5) of the BNS, 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 Rajshekhar