1 2025:CGHC:56949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9487 of 2025 Suresh Sonjhara S/o. Late Chamanlal Sonjhara, Aged About 46 Years R/o. New Shubhash Nagar, Thana- Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Thana- Mujgahan, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No. 150/2025, registered at Police Station – Mujgahan, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 and 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.07.2025 the complainant, Vimal Mishra, lodged a report stating that between 7th and 8th July 2025 some unknown person entered his house and stole gold ornaments worth Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter, the report was lodged and the police arrested the applicant for the alleged commission of the offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.25 18:42:09 +0530 2 and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant has been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused, though such a memorandum cannot be legally used as evidence against him. The applicant is in jail since 23.07.2025, therefore, learned counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that from the perusal of the case, it is evident that the complainant, Vimal Mishra, had gone to Rewa, Madhya Pradesh on 25.06.25 with his family to attend his sister-in-law’s wedding after locking his house. On 08.07.25 at around 9:00 AM, when he reached home at Sejabahar, he saw that the main gate’s lock was broken, the door was open, and the belongings inside the room were scattered. Inside the room, three gold lockets and three pairs of silver anklets kept in a steel box were missing. Some unknown thief broke the house lock, entered inside, and stole the above articles worth Rs.50,000/-. Based on the applicant’s complaint, a case was registered at Police Station Mujgahan against the applicant/accused along with other co-accused person. It is submitted that the incident forms part of an organized conspiracy to commit theft. The applicant has 05 criminal antecedents of a similar nature including the present one, for which the applicant has preferred bail applications which have been listed today in MCRC Nos. 9400/2025, 9525/2025, 9529/2025, 9530/2025. Considering the gravity of the offence and the applicant’s criminal history which shows that he is a habitual offender, therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident from the case diary that after the complainant locked his house on 25.06.2025 and returned on 08.07.25, she found the main door lock broken, the household articles scattered, and valuables worth approximately Rs. 50,000 stolen. On her report, an FIR was registered at Police Station Muzaffarganj against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is alleged that the applicant is said to have purchased the stolen articles including such gold ornaments. Furthermore, the applicant has 05 criminal antecedents of a similar nature including the present one, for which the applicant has preferred bail applications which have been listed and being rejected today in MCRC Nos. 9400/2025, 9525/2025, 9529/2025, 9530/2025. In view of the seriousness of the offence, the organized nature of the crime, and the applicant’s criminal history which shows that he is a habitual offender, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – Suresh Sonjhara involved in Crime No. 150/2025, registered at Police Station – Mujgahan, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 and 111 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 Preeti