1 2026:CGHC:1956 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10282 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 (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer- Police Station- Komakhan District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.01.2026 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. 05/2025, registered at Police Station Komakhan District- 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 24.12.2024, the complainant Vishnu Bariha had parked his Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle outside his aunt’s house at Village Bhatgaon and went to sleep after visiting a fair. During the night, between 1:30–2:00 A.M., the motorcycle was found missing and was allegedly stolen by unknown persons. Accordingly, Crime No. 05/2025 under Section 303(2) BNS was registered at Police Station Komakhan. During investigation, the present applicants Ashfaq Ali @ Astu and Pritam Chakradhari, already arrested in another theft case, disclosed in their memorandum statements that they were involved in this motorcycle theft as well. Several stolen motorcycles, including the one related to the present case, were recovered from the applicants and other co-accused. 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 present applicant is not named in the FIR, only on the basis of suspicion and false memorandum statement of co- accused, he has been arrested. He also submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that seizure witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. 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. 3 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. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have participated in the theft of the complainant’s motorcycle and to be part of an organized vehicle- theft gang, with involvement in multiple similar 10 offences, as such, the applicant is a habitual offender and is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it prima facie appears that the applicant allegedly committed theft of the complainant’s Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle on the night of 24.12.2024 from outside the house of the complainant’s aunt at Village Bhatgaon, though the offence was initially registered against unknown persons, but during investigation the applicant, along with co-accused, was implicated on the basis of memorandum statements made after his arrest in another theft case. The investigation further reveals that the stolen motorcycle of the present case, along with several other stolen motorcycles, were recovered from the applicant and other co-accused, indicating his prima facie involvement in the present case. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 10 criminal antecedents of identical nature registered against him at different police stations and all 4 cases are of the year 2025, as such, the applicant is a habitual offender, has misused the bail granted to him earlier and a member of an organized vehicle-theft gang, 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 is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Ashfaq Ali @ Astu, involved in Crime No. 05/2025, registered at Police Station Komakhan District- 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