1 2025:CGHC:45968 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7182 of 2025 • Narendra S/o Shri Nandlal Maheshwari, Aged About 67 Years R/o Flat No. 701, Gokul Tower C.H.S, Tulinj Road, In Front of Topaz Shopping Center, Post - Nalasopara East, District - Palghar, Maharashtra, Pin- 401209 (Particulars Of The Applicant Are Mentioned Correctly) --- Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 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.353/2025, registered at Police Station - Chawni District – Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.09.10 18:03:19 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, on 08.07.2025 a written complaint was given by the complainant Manoj Jain stating that he is the owner of Jewelry Shop namely Saheli Alankaran, Situated at Power House Bhilai. On 07.07.2025 at about 5:30 P.M.- 6:00P.M. one person namely Rajesh Rampal Pathak came to his shop to buy some jewelry; he brought one gold ring weighing 2.920 Grams amounting to Rs. 31,055 and silver coin of 10 grams amounting to Rs.1205/-. He exchanged his old golden tops in lieu of the new jewelry but later on complainant found that the Gold Tops exchanged was fake, duping him to the tune of Rs. 32,260/-. The compliant was lodged before Police Authorities Chawni, District Durg. Accordingly, Police Authorities registered FIR against Rajesh Rampal Pathak for offence as mentioned in the application. That the allegation against the present applicant is that during course of investigation CCTV footage was obtained from the shop where the present applicant was seen standing beside the main accused and therefore on the basis of suspicion the present applicant was arrested. The present applicant was arrested on 09.07.2025 and sent to judicial custody. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed his power today itself in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation levelled against the present applicant is that he purchased a gold ring and gold coin, amounting to Rs.32,260/- 3 from the complainant’s shop and in exchange he gave golden earrings to the shopkeeper, which were duplicate. It is further submitted that the present applicant introduced himself with a fake identity. He further submits that applicant is having six criminal antecedent and he in jail since 09.07.2025, 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 counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that applicant is resident of Maharshtra and he is having six criminal antecedents bearing crime Nos.56 of 2006, 43 of 2021, 447 of 2021, 47 of 2022, 11 of 2023, 100 of 2024 and 355 of 2025 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC (in all crime numbers) it appears that applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitle for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that applicant is having six criminal antecedent bearing crime Nos.56 of 2006, 43 of 2021, 447 of 2021, 47 of 2022, 11 of 2023, 100 of 2024 and 355 of 2025 of similar offence The applicant is in jail since 09.07.2025, also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak 4 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 at this stage. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Narendra, involved in 353/2025, registered at Police Station - Chawni District – Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS is rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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 vaishali