1 2026:CGHC:4742 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 931 of 2026 Ravi Agariya S/o Mahendra @ Maheshwar Agariya Aged About 19 Years R/o Village-Kaskela, Junapara Police Chowki-Latori, P.S.- Jainagar Distt.- Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bishrampur, Distt.- Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. This is the :rst bail application :led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 263/2025 registered at Police Station Bishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.), for the o?ence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(ई), 112(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution, the victim lodged an FIR on 11.10.2025 alleging that the applicant, along with other accused persons, committed theft of copper cable wire by entering the mine/quarry between 11:00 PM on 10.10.2025 and 4:00 AM on 11.10.2025. On the basis of the said FIR, a ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.29 15:02:17 +0530 2 case was registered against the applicant and the other accused persons under Sections 331(4), 305(ई), and 112(2) of the BNS. During the course of investigation, a seizure memo under Section 23 of the BSA was prepared, and Charge-sheet No. 198/2025 was :led on 15.10.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits the charge-sheet has been :led and there is no requirement for the prolonged detention of the applicant, who is of young age and innocent. He also submits that the only allegation against the applicant is that he allegedly stole copper cable wire from the mines merely on the basis of a memorandum under Section 23 of the BSA. It is a settled proposition of law that the part of a confession relating to the guilt of the accused under Section 23 of the BSA is inadmissible and cannot be the sole basis to deny a bail application. Moreover, the seizure memorandum does not conclusively connect the applicant with the alleged o?ence, as seizure alone does not establish the commission of theft. He also submits that the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application on the ground that the applicant is a habitual o?ender. In doing so, the Court has drawn an incorrect presumption against the applicant. There is only one similar case of theft pending against the Applicant, bearing Crime No. 167/25, before the same Court and none other. Moreover, the said charges are still pending adjudication and no conviction has been recorded. In order to designate a person as a habitual o?ender, one or two stray cases are not suEcient. Mere registration of a single FIR of a similar nature, without any conviction, cannot be a ground for drawing adverse antecedents and mechanically denying the right to bail. He further submits that the present applicant has only 01 criminal antecedent except the present case which 3 is also listed today before this Court for hearing. He submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 12.10.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. She submits that the present applicant has 01 more criminal antecedent of the similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual o?ender, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the allegation against the present applicant is that he, along with other accused persons, committed theft of copper cable wire by entering the mine/quarry between 11:00 PM on 10.10.2025 and 4:00 AM on 11.10.2025, and further considering the fact that the present applicant has one criminal antecedent apart from the present case, which is also listed before this Court for hearing today. Moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, the applicant has been incarcerated since 12.10.2025, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case 7. Let the Applicant – Ravi Agariya, involved in Crime No. 263/2025 registered at Police Station Bishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.), for the o?ence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(ई), 112(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court 4 concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall :le an undertaking to the e?ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates :xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date :xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suEcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date :xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates :xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without suEcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OEce is directed to send a certi:ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek