1 2026:CGHC:10785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2074 of 2026 Lale Basod S/o Govind Basod Aged About 29 Years R/o Obri, Gourmatiya Tola P.S. Sarai, District Singroli (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chakarbhata District Bilaspur C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.03.2026 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. 272/2024, registered at Police Station Chakarbhata, District – Bilaspur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 413, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Pushpendra Dewangan, reported that on 13.06.2024 he had closed and locked his jewellery shop, namely Misi Jewelers, situated at Hirri Mines, Chakarbhata, at night and thereafter went to his residence to rest. On the next morning, when he ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.03.02 17:52:03 +0530 2 reached the shop, he found that the lock had been broken and jewellery worth approximately Rs. 9,00,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- in cash had been stolen by some unknown person(s). On the basis of the said report, an F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was arrested on 23.09.2024, and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court of law. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is no direct evidence on record connecting the present applicant with the commission of the alleged offence. The F.I.R. was lodged against an “unknown person,” without any specific identification or description of the accused, therefore, the implication of the applicant at a later stage is highly doubtful and lacks legal justification. He also submits that the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 30.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 247/2026. The present applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-accused person, which is a weak piece of evidence. He submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.09.2025, 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 the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. She further submits that the present applicant has 12 criminal antecedents in the State of Madhya Pradesh and one criminal antecedent in the State of Chhattisgarh, which shows that he is a habitual offender. Therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 3 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 12 criminal antecedents in the State of Madhya Pradesh and 01 criminal antecedent in the State of Chhattisgarh, 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 – Lale Basod, involved in Crime No. 272/2024, registered at Police Station Chakarbhata, District – Bilaspur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 413, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is rejected. 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