1 2026:CGHC:1292 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 133 of 2026 Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Bhagi Rao Aged About 31 Years R/o Bhedi, P.S. Doundilohara, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Doundilohara, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-Applicant(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.144/2025, registered at Police Station Doundilohara, District-Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305(A) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that it is alleged that the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 complainant namely Dharmendra Deshmukh had lodged a complaint before the Police Station Doundilohara District Balod, alleging therein that some unknown persons had broken the lock of the Primary School, Village Bhedi and stolen 01 No. Induction, Mike box set and smart T.V. During the course of investigation and based on the memorandum statement of the co-accused person Dushyant Kumar, the articles were seized from the accused and thereafter, aforesaid offence were registered against the applicant along with co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. He further submits that there is no direct allegation against the present applicant, only vague allegation against him, looking to the material available on records, prima facie case is not made out against the present applicant. He further submits that based on the memorandum of co- accused person namely Dushyant Kumar the present applicant has been arrested in the instant crime and the applicant is in jail since 03.11.2025 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long 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 submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is having 11 3 criminal antecedents out of which 08 cases are under the Ishtaghasa and remaining are under the IPC as such, he is a habitual offender and further from the accused persons, one induction, Mike box set and smart T.V. have been recovered. As such, he 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 that the applicant is having 11 criminal antecedents out of which 08 cases are under the Istaghasa and remaining cases are under the IPC and as such he is a habitual offender and further from the possession of the applicant along with co-accused, one induction, Mike box set and smart T.V. have been recovered 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 is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Vijay Kumar filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No.144/2025, registered at Police Station Doundilohara, District-Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305(A) 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 Kunal