1 2025:CGHC:35823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5630 of 2025 Dhanendra Devdas @ Dhanna Son Of Mayaku Devdas Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Village Munrethi, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 112(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the on the night of March 29, 2 2025, between 10:00 PM and 12:30 AM, an unknown thief stole approximately Rs. 25,000/- in cash from the cash box in the complainant's Bajarang Chowk Sahu Kirana Stores and shoe shop in Village Darba under Temple Hasaud Police Station, Raipur. During the investigation, the accused persons in another case, Crime No. 130/25, namely Gulshan Kumar Patel, Hari Vishwakarma, Nandu Kumar Yadav, and Dhane Singh Devdas, confessed to committing theft at the complainant's shop in Village Darba and stated that they had divided the stolen amount among themselves. Based on their memorandum statements, Rs. 3,500/- was recovered from the possession of accused Gulshan Patel, along with the cash box. The accused persons were arrested on April 11, 2025. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the alleged crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him and there is no ingredient of offence punishable under sections 305 (a), 331(4), 112(2) and 3(5) of BNS against the present applicant. Further, the present applicant has neither entered in the shops nor committed theft of any article from the complainant's shops, and the prosecution has not collected the sufficient material from the possession of the applicant regarding theft of the said article and the police has not seized any said article from the applicant and he has not committed theft of the alleged articles and only on the 3 basis of memorandum statement, the applicant has been arrested by police. The prosecution has cooked up a concocted story to falsely implicate the present applicant based upon the false and baseless allegations. Lastly, the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.04.2025 and though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the complainant has registered the case against the applicant for theft in his shops and during investigation, the applicant was arrested along with other co- accused persons on the basis of memorandum statement and has confessed that the applicant along with other co-accused committed theft of Rs.25,000/- along with other articles from the shops of the complainant and distributed the same among themselves. Further, the applicant has two pervious criminal antecedents registered against him of similar nature, which itself shows that he is a habitual offender, as such, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the material available in the case diary, and the fact that the present applicant is a habitual offender having as many as two prior criminal antecedents registered 4 against him. Further in the instant case, the applicant, along with others, committed theft from the complainant's shop by breaking the lock and stealing cash amounting to Rs.25,000/- from shops. These facts clearly establish a pattern of habitual and deliberate criminal conduct. Considering the fact that the applicant's habitual nature, previous criminal background, 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, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail, accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Dhanendra Devdas @ Dhanna, involved in Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 112(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’), is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. sd/-d/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice alfiza / Akhil