1 2025:CGHC:48340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7577 of 2025 Umakant Kale S/o Kunjram Kale Aged About 34 Years R/o Gevra Basti, Thana Kusmunda, District Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through-Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.09.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 529/2024, registered at Police Station Ratanpur, District – Bilaspur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, in brief, on 07.08.2024, the complainant, namely Nilesh Kashyap, Manager of Shiva Road Lines, lodged an oral report against an unknown person stating that some unknown person had committed theft of 80 litres of diesel from a trailer which was parked in front of his office. Thereafter, the police registered an FIR against an ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.22 11:50:02 +0530 2 unknown person. During investigation, the FIR was registered against the co-accused person, and on the basis of the memorandum of the co- accused, the present applicant has been implicated in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the name of the present applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, and only on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused, the present applicant has been implicated in this case. He also submits that the applicant is a resident of District Korba, and he has neither committed theft of any diesel nor has he ever gone to Ratanpur. The applicant is a labourer who earns his livelihood through daily hard work, and only with a view to harass him, the police have unnecessarily implicated the applicant in a false case. He further submits that the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court, but since the applicant was having previous records, the learned trial Court did not grant him bail. However, it is submitted that in all the pending cases, the applicant has already been granted bail. He submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 12.06.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. She submits that the present applicant has 04 criminal antecedents under the IPC out of which 03 cases are of the similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for grant regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case also considering the fact that the present applicant has 04 criminal antecedents under the IPC out of which 03 cases are of the similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender 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 – Umakant Kale, involved in Crime No. 529/2024, registered at Police Station Ratanpur, District – Bilaspur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya 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 Abhishek