1 2025:CGHC:48185 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6971 of 2025 1 - Deepak Yadav S/o Shri Hariram Aged About 28 Years R/o Fokatpara, Sheorinarayan, Thana Sheorinarayan District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Bhagwat Yadav S/o Late Shri Makhanlal Aged About 21 Years R/o Fokatpara, Sheorinarayan, Thana Sheorinarayan District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ...Applicants versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gidhouri District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.09.2025 1. The applicant have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 91/2025, registered at Police Station Gidhouri District – Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 317(2), 238 & 3(5) of BNS. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.19 14:32:39 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief is that, complainant Radheshyam Sahu has lodged the report on 25.04.2025 against unknown persons with the averment that on 24.04.2025 at about 10 pm he was sleeping and when he woke up in the next morning he saw that the ornaments kept in the box were missing, after search the blank box was found in the field of Pyarelal Yadav, the ornaments were stolen by unknown persons so on the basis of the report offence against unknown persons was registered and the applicants have been arrested, their memorandum is recorded and they were implicated in the three cases and after completing the investigation charge-sheet is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants respectfully submits that the names of the applicants do not find mention in the FIR and they have been arrested merely on the basis of doubt, without any proof to establish their involvement in the alleged offence of theft. No stolen articles have been seized from the applicants, and only their memorandum statements were recorded, in which they allegedly stated that the ornaments were sold to Astha Jewellers. From the owner of Astha Jewellers, a cash amount was seized, but even in that seizure, no stolen ornaments were recovered, and mere recovery of cash from a co-accused cannot connect the present applicants with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicants were initially arrested in one case on suspicion and have thereafter been falsely implicated in three other cases of similar nature registered at Police Station Sheorinarayan, with which they have no concern. The alleged offence is triable by the learned Magistrate, and the charge- sheet has already been filed, therefore, further detention of the 3 applicants are not required. The applicants are young persons, in custody since 18.05.2025, therefore, he prays for releasing the applicants on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposed the bail application and submitted that in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submitted that the present applicants’ bail application of a similar nature was earlier rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 6625 of 2025 vide order dated 04.09.2025 on the ground that they have criminal antecedents, which clearly shows that the applicants are habitual offenders. Therefore, they are not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicant No. 1 Deepak Yadav has five criminal antecedents whereas applicant No. 2 Bhagwat Yadav has two criminal antecedents in same nature and that, the present applicants’ bail application of similar nature was earlier rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 6625 of 2025 vide order dated 04.09.2025 on the ground that they have criminal antecedents, which clearly shows that the applicants are habitual offenders 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 4 Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Deepak Yadav & Bhagwat Yadav involved in Crime No. 91/2025, registered at Police Station Gidhouri District – Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 317(2), 238 & 3(5) of BNS, are rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav