1 2025:CGHC:59712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10060 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, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Tendukona, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... 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. 37/2025, registered at Police Station Tendukona, Distt. Mahasamund (CG) for the offence punishable AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 under Sections 303(2), 3(5), of BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 25.03.2025, the complainant Dani Ram Sahu reported that on 11.11.2024, he and his brother had gone to village Kolda on their motorcycle (CG 06 GV 5329). After parking the motorcycle near Sukhad Bari Road and going to purchase liquor, they returned to find that an unknown person had stolen the motorcycle. Based on this report, Crime No. 37/2025 under Section 303(2) BNS was registered against an unknown accused at Police Station Tendukona. During investigation, the police found that accused Hitesh Kumar Kumhar and three others, who were already arrested in another theft case (Crime No. 64/2025, PS Mahasamund), admitted in their memorandum statements that they had also stolen the motorcycle involved in the present case, which led to the registration of alleged offence against the applicant. 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 essential ingredients of Section 303 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. 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 3 already been acquitted, as regards status of trial, the statement of two witnesses have been recorded till date. 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 on 11.11.2024. During investigation the police recovered the stolen motorcycle along with four other stolen motorcycles, other co-accused were also found in possession of stolen vehicles, suggesting that the applicant was part of a vehicle theft gang. 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 on 11.11.2024 and during investigation the police recovered the stolen motorcycle along with four other stolen motorcycles, other co-accused were also found in possession of stolen vehicles, suggesting that the applicant was part of a vehicle 4 theft gang. 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 two 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, involved in Crime No. 37/2025, registered at Police Station Tendukona, Distt. Mahasamund (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 3(5), 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