1 2025:CGHC:59704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10107 of 2025 Hitesh Kumar Kumhaar S/o Shri Nand Lal Kumhaar Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 11 Kumhaar Para, Village Farauda, Chowki Bundeli, P.S. Tendukona District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer as well as Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.12.2025 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. 121/2025, registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 112(1) and 313 of BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that Complainant namely Aisram Sahu has lodged the report stating that he has parked his Motor Cycle (C.D. Delux) bearing No. CG 04 KC 5923 in the premise of Government Hospital, which was found missing when he returned at around 2 P.M. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 The Motor Cycle was used by him and the owner of the same is his Maternal Uncle namely Rikhiram Sahu. Hence the F.I.R was initially lodged against the unknown persons. After due investigation, the Motor Cycle was recovered from the joint possession of applicant and co- accused persons. Hence, this 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 essential ingredients of Section 303, 313, 112 are not attracted in the present matter. The applicant has no involvement or business related to theft. The prosecution has failed to explain the manner in which the motorcycle was allegedly recovered from the accused persons. The prosecution story is inconsistent and appears fabricated. He also submits that accused, Ashfaq Ali @ Assu and Pritam Chakradhari has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 30.09.2025 in Bail Application No.649/2025. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 11 criminal antecedents, out of which, in one case Crime No. 70/2020, PS Mahasamund, applicant has already been acquitted. The applicant is in jail since 26.03.2025 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. She further submits that present applicant along with other co-accused, stole the complainant’s motorcycle. During investigation the police recorded memorandum statements of co-accused persons and the applicant, on the basis of which, several 3 stolen motorcycles were recovered, including five motorcycles seized on the basis of Hitesh’s memorandum. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 11 criminal antecedents in various police stations, out of which, 10 cases of theft are pending against him, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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 applicant along with other co-accused, stole the complainant’s motorcycle and during investigation the police recorded memorandum statements of co-accused and the applicant. From them, several stolen motorcycles were recovered, including five motorcycles seized on the basis of applicant’s memorandum statement. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 11 criminal antecedents in various police stations, out of which, 10 cases of theft are pending against him, which shows that applicant is a habitual offender, as regards status of trial, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that statement of five witnesses have been recorded till date, and 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, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant- Hitesh Kumar Kumhaar, 4 involved in Crime No. 121/2025, registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 112(1) and 313 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 Rajshekhar