1 2025:CGHC:39146 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6171 of 2025 Kishan Jangde S/o Sartaram Jangde Aged About 23 Years R/o Near Kukri Talab, Ward No. 26, Gudhiyari, P.S.- Gudhiyari, District-Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Deendayal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 292/2024, registered at Police Station : Deendayal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 331(4), 305, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant lodged an FIR with the intent that on 11.06.2024, the complainant had KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 locked his house and went to Jharkhand for office work, on 01.07.2024, his neighbor informed that the lock of the door of his house was broken and on 03.07.2024, when complainant came back home, he saw that the lock of the door of his house was broken and his Motorcycle Honda Hornet 2.0 number CG-04-PQ- 0528 with engine No. MC-56- EA-2003544, Chassis No. ME-4- MC567-JPA- 003127, model 2023, blue colour, kept in the hall was missing other than that a documents of the motorcycle and a silver plate worth about Rs.90,000/- stolen by some unknown thief, based on the above complaint of the complainant, a case was registered and during the course of investigation other antecedents of the applicant were come to knowledge of the investigating officer and the applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that in the present case, there is no recovery of any incriminating article from his possession based on his pointing. Additionally, with regard to the seven criminal antecedents mentioned in para No. 4(A) of the bail application, it is stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in those cases as well, which pertain to the same police station. He further submits that the evidence in the present case is insufficient to establish that the applicant has committed the alleged offences and he is in jail since 10.10.2024 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court further the bail application of the co-accused has rejected by this Court in MCRC No.2982/2025, vide order dated 21.04.2025 on the ground of criminal antecedents as well as from the recovery further the applicant has 07 criminal antecedents which has been explained in para 4(A) of bail application, as such, he is a habitual offender, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court further the bail application of the co-accused has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No.2982/2025, vide order dated 21.04.2025 on the ground of criminal antecedents as well as from the recovery further the present applicant has 07 criminal antecedents which has been explained in para 4(A) of bail application and all are still pending, as such, he is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. 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 4 that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Kishan Jangde, involved in Crime No. 292/2024, registered at Police Station : Deendayal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 331(4), 305, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal