1 2025:CGHC:55556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9179 of 2025 Mangluram Kenwat S/o Gopal Kenwat Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Budikhar, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G. (Wrongly Mention In Charge Sheet As Manglu Kenwat) ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Tumgaon District Mahansamund C.G. … Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No. 153/2025, registered at Police Station – Akaltara, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A) & 317 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 28.04.2025, Yogesh Krishn Kainvart reported when the return home from the family function on 2 28.04.2025 they find that the main door lock was broken and Rs.40,000/- cash, and old used, gold jewelry, gold Kangan, gold earring, Mangalsutra, ring, silver payal, and Bhichiya was stolen from unknown person from the bedroom Almira. which crime has been registered against unknown person, after investigation the present applicant and he was arrested on 19.07.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant the present applicant has been falsely implicated by the concerned police station, whereas he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. There is no direct evidence on record connecting the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence, nor has any stolen property been recovered from him; rather, on the basis of a common seizure memo, the applicant has been unnecessarily roped into three different cases, which is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that the FIR was initially lodged against an “unknown person” without any specific identification of the accused, and therefore the subsequent implication of the applicant is highly doubtful and lacks legal justification. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and the applicant has been languishing in jail amongst hardened criminals since 19.07.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that, as per the prosecution case, on 28.04.2025, the complainant, Yogesh Krishn Kainvart, returned home from a family function and found that 3 the main door lock of his house had been broken. Upon checking, he discovered that Rs. 40,000/- in cash and old used gold jewellery, including a gold kangan, gold earrings, a mangalsutra, a ring, silver payal, and bichhiya, had been stolen from the bedroom almirah by the applicant. It is further submitted that the present applicant has four previous criminal antecedents of a similar nature. Hence, considering the applicant’s past conduct and involvement in similar offences, it is argued that he is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Hence, considering the applicant’s past conduct and involvement in similar offences, it is argued that he is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that, as per the prosecution story, on 28.04.2025, the complainant, Yogesh Krishn Kainvart, returned home from a family function and found the main door lock of his house broken. Upon inspection, it was discovered that Rs. 40,000/- in cash and various gold and silver ornaments, including a gold kangan, gold earrings, a mangalsutra, a ring, silver payal, and bichhiya, had been stolen from the bedroom almirah by an unknown person. Although the offence was initially registered against an unknown accused but during the course of investigation, the present applicant was identified as the person involved in the commission of the said theft and was subsequently arrested on 19.07.2025. The case diary further reveals that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents of a similar nature, indicating his habitual involvement in offences of theft. In view of the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s past conduct, and the materials collected during investigation, this Court is of the considered 4 opinion that no grounds exist to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 7. Therefore, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – Mangluram Kenwat involved in Crime No. 153/2025, registered at Police Station – Akaltara, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A) & 317 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. 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 vaibhav