1 2025:CGHC:52353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8448 of 2025 Kanhaiya Lal Sahu S/o Shri Vishram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kotrasarar, Ward No. 10, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Somni, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.10.2025 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. 184/2024, registered at Police Station Somni, District- Rajnandgaon (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 of BNS. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on the night of 03.08.2024, the complainant Rakesh Kumar Jain closed his shop and went home at around 8:30 PM. The next morning, on 04.08.2024 at 9:00 AM, when his wife opened the shop, she found that the door and shutter were broken, the CCTV camera was damaged, and gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.8,00,000/- had been stolen. During investigation, based on the memorandum statement of the accused, the police conducted recovery proceedings and arrested the accused. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in Crime No. 184/2024 at Police Station Somni. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submit that the applicant is not named in the FIR only on the basis of memorandum statement, the name of present applicant has been implicated in the case. He also submits that five different cases solely on the basis of a single memorandum statement, which is highly doubtful, unreliable and inadmissible in evidence. The applicant is in jail since 23.11.2024 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 State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits 3 that the applicant allegedly committed theft in the jewelry shop and jewelry worth Rs.8 lakhs have been recovered from his possession, so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has nine criminal antecedents, as such he is a habitual offender and 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 & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that the applicant is alleged to have committed theft in the jewelry shop and jewelry worth Rs.8 lakhs have been recovered from his possession, further considering the fact that the applicant is a habitual offender, with a criminal record of nine previous cases registered against him (Crime Nos. 371/03, 115/03, 179/03, 377/07, 157/08, 166/08, 38/15, 60/15, and 57/16), to which no explanation has been offered, also in light of the judgment rendered by the 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, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Kanhaiya Lal Sahu, 4 involved in Crime No. 184/2024, registered at Police Station Somni, District- Rajnandgaon (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 of BNS, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and concluded the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil