1 2025:CGHC:35654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5049 of 2025 1 - R Sonu S/o R Anand Aged About 24 Years R/o Hospital Sector Road No. 11 Block No. 3 Room No. 11 Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) (Fathers Name Of The Applicant Is Not Properly Mentioned In The Entire Impugned Sheet) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Sho Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23/07/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 521/2024, registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 309, 116(6), 351(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant lodged a report that on 26.12.2024 he submitted that on 25.12.2024 MADHURIMA THAKUR Digitally signed by MADHURIMA THAKUR Date: 2025.07.24 19:26:22 +0530 2 complainant was going out with his mother at that time the present applicant along with other accused came and asked for money to drink liquor and on refusing to give money he abused the complainant and looted his mobile and Rs. 1250/- from the complainant and the matter was reported to the police station and the police registered the offence and arrested the applicant. 3. It was argued by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No money was recovered from the possession of the present applicant. The injuries sustained by the complainant is simple in nature. He further submits that there is delay in lodging the FIR and no explanation was given for the delayed FIR. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 27.12.2024 and charge sheet has already been filed, also, 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 counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there are 9 criminal antecedents registered against the applicant, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the fact that the applicant has 9 criminal antecedents, as such he is a habitual offender and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court in the present case and also in 3 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 is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant- R Sonu involved in Crime No. 521/2024 under Section 309, 116(6), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, is rejected. 7. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the Trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously as soon as possible in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 8. 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 Madhurima