1 2025:CGHC:55194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9080 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. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No. 149/2025, registered at Police Station – Tumgaon, District: Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A), 317(4)(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that Jayant Agrawal reported that, VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.13 11:58:26 +0530 2 on 15.07.2025 as daily he locked the shatter of the his jewelry shop and went to home Birkoni, on 16.07.2025 at morning when he reach the shop he found the lock of shutter was broken and open from one side, he found that 60 piece of gold Fulli worth of Rs.60,000, silver ring worth of Rs. 30,000/- and earring worth of Rs.90,000/- was stolen from unknown person. Which crime has been registered against unknown person, after investigation the present applicant was arrested on 20.08.2025 and filed the charge sheet in the competent court of law. 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 has not acted in the manner alleged, and there is no direct evidence on record connecting him with the commission of the alleged offence. The FIR was initially lodged against an “unknown person,” without any specific identification or description of the accused hence, the subsequent implication of the applicant is highly doubtful and lacks legal justification. No alleged stolen property has been seized from the applicant, and by way of a common seizure memo, he has been wrongly involved in three cases. There is no eyewitness to the incident, and the applicant has been in jail since his arrest on 20.08.2025, 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 3 State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that after closing the shutter of his jewellery shop, the complainant went to his home at Birkoni, and on the following morning, i.e., 16.07.2025, when he reached the shop, he found that the lock of the shutter was broken and opened from one side. Upon inspection, it was discovered that 60 pieces of gold worth Rs. 60,000/-, a silver ring worth Rs. 30,000/-, and earrings worth Rs. 90,000/- had been stolen by 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. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident from the case diary that the applicant/accused broke the lock of the shutter of Sharda Jewellers, Village Bhoring, and committed theft of 60 pieces of gold bangles worth Rs. 60,000/- and a silver chain and ring worth approximately Rs.30,000/-. The memorandum statement of the accused Mangalu further reveals his involvement in several other theft incidents committed in a planned and organized manner along with his associates. The applicant has four previous criminal antecedents of a similar nature and is found to be a habitual offender. Considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant regular bail to the applicant. 4 6. Therefore, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – Mangluram Kenwat involved in Crime No. 149/2025, registered at Police Station – Tumgaon, District: Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A), 317(4)(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 7. 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