1 2025:CGHC:60609 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10274 of 2025 Ashfaq Ali @ Astu S/o Rais Ali Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Kolda Bazar Para Ward No. 01, Chouki Bundeli, Police Station Tendukona District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer - Police Station - Tendukona, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.12.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 39/2025, registered at Police Station Tendukona, District – Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 02.04.2025, the complainant Jay Singh Yadav appeared at the police station and lodged a written complaint stating that on 14.12.2024, he had gone to see the Raj Gaurav Festival Mela in Village Dokripali with his friend on his motorcycle bearing ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.15 11:28:27 +0530 2 registration No. CG 04 NW 2609. He had parked the motorcycle at the fairground, and upon returning from the fair, he found that the motorcycle had been stolen by an unknown person. On this basis, Crime No. 39/2025 under Section 303(2) of the BNS was registered at Police Station Tendukona against an unknown person. It was further alleged that during the investigation of Crime No. 64/2025 of Police Station Mahasamund, the original record was examined, and accused Hitesh Kumar Kumhar and three others were arrested for theft. In their memorandum statements, it was disclosed that the motorcycle involved in Crime No. 37/2025 of Police Station Tendukona had also been stolen by them. Accordingly, the said accused were made co-accused in the crime registered at Police Station Tendukona. Apart from the motorcycle involved in the present crime, 24 other stolen motorcycles and 6 submersible pumps were seized from the applicants/accused along with two other accused persons, in connection with which separate crimes have been registered in various police station jurisdictions. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant has no direct or indirect involvement in the alleged crime. The name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, and only on the basis of suspicion and a false memorandum statement of the accused in Crime No. 64/2025, the present applicant has been implicated and arrested. He also submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the memorandum and seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate, while considering the bail application, that the bail applications of the other five co-accused persons on similar allegations have already been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund. He submits that the 3 applicant is a labourer and earns his livelihood through manual work to support himself and his family. His continued detention in jail is causing severe economic, mental, and physical hardship to his dependent family members. He submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 28.03.2025, 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 State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He submits that the present applicant has 10 criminal antecedents of the similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for grant regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case also considering the fact that the present applicant has 10 criminal antecedents of the similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble 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 it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Ashfaq Ali @ Astu, involved in Crime No. 39/2025, registered at Police Station Tendukona, District – Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 4 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek