Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27254 (CHH)

VIVEK SHUKLA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/4695/2025 · 2025-06-19

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:26348 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4695 of 2025 Vivek Shukla S/o Rajesh Shukla Aged About 31 Years R/o Kargiroad, Kota, At Present Resident Of Sharda Vihar Colony, Police Station - Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Line, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singhal alongwith Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/06/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1109/2023 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.11.2023, the complainant, Anand Somavar, filed a report at Civil Line Police Station in Bilaspur alleging therein that his son, Amit Somavar, had parked his Royal Enfield Classic 350 motorcycle bearing registration number CG 10 BG 8248 at CLC Plaza, Mangala Chowk parking lot. However, the motorcycle was stolen by an unknown thief. Based on the complainant's report, Civil Line Police Station, Bilaspur registered First Information Report (FIR) No. 1109/2023 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against an unknown person. During the investigation, based on informant information, the accused, Vivek Shukla, was interrogated and confessed to stealing total of eight motorcycles from different locations on various dates. Thereafter, he was arrested on 18.02.2025, and after completing the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted to the court. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence only on the basis of suspicion, present applicant has implicated in offence in question. The applicant is in jail since 18.02.2025, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, on the basis of memorandum statement, applicant has been implicated in 7 other identical cases, which are also registered at same Police Station and are pending, further charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the 3 present case. She further submits that the applicant is alleged to have stolen motorcycle of complainant, which was parked at Mangala Chowk parking lot and when he was interrogated he himself confessed stealing of eight motorcycles from different locations on various dates including the complainant’s motorcycle, further there is seizure of two motorcycle has been made from him, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 7 criminal antecedents of identical nature, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that the applicant himself confessed stealing of eight motorcycles from different locations on various dates including the complainant’s motorcycle, further there is seizure of two motorcycles has been made from him, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 7 criminal antecedents of identical nature, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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 applicant-Vivek Shukla, involved in Crime No. 1109/2023 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable 4 under Section 379 of IPC, 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil