1 2026:CGHC:22619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4498 of 2026 1. Pochi @ Yogi Pardhi S/o Bhagwan Singh Pardhi Aged About 40 Years R/o Unida, Police Station Gunga, District- Bhopal (M.P.) (Wrongly Mentioned As (C.G.) 2. Jespal Singh Pardhi S/o Nepal Pardhi, Aged About 22 Years R/o Unida, Police Station Gunga, District- Bhopal (M.P.) (Wrongly Mentioned As (C.G.) .. Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Marwahi , District- Gaurela- Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.05.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 211/2025 registered at Police Station Marwahi, District – Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 331(3), 305(A), 112, 317(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.05.15 17:38:27 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, Jeevan Yadav, lodged a report stating that on 09.12.2025 at about 5:20 P.M., his son informed him telephonically that his daughter, Shalini, upon returning home at around 5:10 P.M., found the front door locked and, upon entering the house, discovered that the back door and the doors of three rooms were open, with household articles lying scattered. It was alleged that unknown persons had committed theft of gold and silver ornaments along with cash amounting to Rs. 2,15,000/-, and the total value of the stolen property was approximately Rs. 7,50,000/-. Despite local enquiry, no clue could be found and, accordingly, a case was registered against unknown accused persons at Police Station Marwahi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the FIR was registered against unknown persons, and the names of the present applicants do not find mention therein. He further submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case, as their arrest is based solely on memorandum statements. It is further submitted that, as per the prosecution case itself, despite local inquiry, no clue could be found, and the case was initially registered against unknown accused persons at Police Station Marwahi. There is no independent material or evidence on record to establish the involvement of the applicants in the alleged incident. He submits that one of the co-accused, namely Maharana Pardhi, has already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 2957 of 2026 vide order dated 02.04.2026. He further submits that though applicant No. 1 has four criminal antecedents and applicant No. 2 has one criminal antecedent under the IPC, explanations in this regard have also been furnished in paragraph No. 4(a) of the present bail application. He submits that the applicants have 3 been in jail since 18.02.2026, and as the conclusion of the trial may take some time, on these grounds, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application of the applicants. He submits that, as stated by learned counsel for the applicants, applicant No. 1 has four criminal antecedents and applicant No. 2 has one criminal antecedent under the IPC, all antecedents are of a similar nature in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He further submits that the case of the co-accused, namely Maharana Pardhi, is distinguishable, as although he has five criminal antecedents, he has already been acquitted in three cases. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and considering the criminal antecedents of the applicants, they appear to be habitual offenders and, consequently, are not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the criminal antecedents of applicant No. 1, who has four previous cases, and applicant No. 2, who has one criminal antecedent of a similar nature in the State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court is of the view that the applicants appear to be habitual offenders. The case of the co-accused, Maharana Pardhi, who has been granted bail, is clearly distinguishable, as he has already been acquitted in three out of his five criminal cases 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 4 the applicants on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants – Pochi @ Yogi Pardhi and Jespal Singh Pardhi, involved in Crime No. 211/2025 registered at Police Station Marwahi, District – Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 331(3), 305(A), 112, 317(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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