1 2026:CGHC:22888 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4532 of 2026 1. Mohammad Munaf Khatri S/o Late Mohammad Harun Khatri Aged About 48 Years Resident of Ward No 06, Kabir Nagar Nearby Bharat Gas Basna Police Station Basna District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Tahira Bano W/o Mohammad Munaf Khatri Aged About 48 Years Resident of Ward No 06, Kabir Nagar Nearby Bharat Gas Basna Police Station Basna District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police of Police Station Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 166/2025 registered at Police Station - Kurud, District Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(घ) and 111 read with section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.05.15 18:15:07 +0530 2 2. The earlier bail application of the applicants being MCRC No. 8358 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 on merits. 3. As per the brief facts of the prosecution case, the FIR was lodged by Sevak Sahu, who is working as a Manager, alleging inter alia that, during the intervening night of 13/14.06.2025, some unknown persons committed theft and stole cash amounting to Rs. 3,000/-, which was kept in the donation box. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the complainant, the police registered an offence under Sections 331(4) and 305(d) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Subsequently, the matter was investigated by the police, and during the course of investigation, the police initially recorded the memorandum statement of Jahir @ Sameer Khan in connection with Crime No. 165/2025, wherein he disclosed that he, along with the applicants and other accused persons, had committed thefts in various temples. On the basis of the memorandum statement of Jahir @ Sameer Khan, the memorandum statements of the applicants were recorded, and recovery was made in respect of Crime No. 165/2025. Thereafter, the applicants, along with other co-accused persons, were arrested for the commission of the alleged offences. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, the first bail application of the applicants was rejected by this Court on merits. He submits that the present applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that during investigation, memorandum statements of the applicants were recorded in Crime No.165/2025 of Police Station Kurud and seizure was also made only in that case. It is further submitted that the said memorandum and seizure of Crime No.165/2025 have been relied upon by the prosecution to implicate the applicants in other cases including the present Crime No. 166/2025. He further submits that though certain criminal cases have been shown 3 against the applicants, there is in fact no independent criminal antecedent against them, and all the cases have been registered only on the basis of a single memorandum statement recorded in Crime No.165/2025. It is submitted that on the basis of the said one memorandum statement, as many as seven criminal cases including the present case have been registered, without any separate recovery or independent material, and therefore the alleged criminal antecedents are not genuine. He further submits that co-accused Mahmuda Begam has already been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No.3543/2026, 3566/2026, 3560/2026, 3555/2026 and 3544/2026 vide order dated 20.04.2026, and the case of the present applicants stands on similar footing. It is further submitted that there is no recovery from the possession of the applicants in the present Crime No. 166/2025 and the case is based only on memorandum. It is also submitted that there are total 10 witnesses and till date not a single witnesses has been examined, and trial will take time. The applicants are in jail since 12.08.2025. Therefore, on the ground of parity and long custody, he prays for grant of second bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the second bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present applicants are involved in serious offences of theft committed in a systematic and organized manner. It is submitted that the applicants, being part of an organized crime syndicate, have been repeatedly involved in offences of house breaking by night and thereafter committing theft of cash and valuable properties from temples and other premises in a planned manner. He further submits that the investigation reveals that the present and other connected cases have been registered against the applicants on the basis of memorandum statements recorded in Crime 4 No.165/2025, which clearly indicates their involvement in a series of similar offences. It is further submitted that the applicants are involved in serial commission of offences relating to house trespass at night, breaking locks/windows of locked premises and theft of cash amount from donation boxes and other properties, thereby showing a consistent modus operandi. He submits that the allegations are grave in nature and reflect that the applicants are habitual offenders involved in organized criminal activity. Considering the nature and gravity of allegations, the manner in which the offences have been committed in a repeated and organized way, and the prima facie material available on record, the applicants do not deserve the benefit of bail and the present application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations, the material available on record as well as the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that this is a second bail application of the applicants and the earlier bail application was already rejected on merits by this Court. The record further reveals that the applicants are alleged to be involved in offences relating to house trespass by night and theft of cash and valuable property in a systematic and organized manner as part of an organized crime syndicate. It is also evident that the present case and other connected cases have been registered on the basis of memorandum statements recorded in Crime No.165/2025, which indicate a series of similar offences committed by the applicants. Further considering the fact that the applicants are habitual offenders involved in multiple similar cases and their involvement reflects a repeated modus operandi of 5 breaking into locked premises, including temples and other places, and committing theft. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that though bail has been granted to co-accused Mahmuda Begam by this Court, the role attributed to the present applicants, as emerging from the record, is distinct and the case of the applicants cannot be said to be identical so as to extend the benefit of parity. Considering the criminal conduct attributed to the applicants, the seriousness of the allegations, the fact that multiple cases have been registered against them on the basis of memorandum statements, the earlier rejection of their bail application on merits, and the overall circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to take a different view in the present second bail application. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant second bail to the applicants. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicants – Mohammad Munaf Khatri and Tahira Bano, involved in Police Station - Kurud, District Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(घ) and 111 read with section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. 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