1 2026:CGHC:23761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4694 of 2026 1 - Mohammad Munaf Khatri S/o Late Mohammad Harun Khatri Aged About 48 Years R/o Kabir Nagar, Ward No. 06, Nearby Bharat Gas, Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2 - Tahira Bano W/o Mohammad Munaf Khatri Aged About 48 Years R/o Kabir Nagar, Ward No. 06, Nearby Bharat Gas, Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station City Kotwali Dhamari, District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.06.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 149/2025, registered at Police Station City Kotwali Dhamari, District – Dhamtari (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A) read with Section 3(5), and 111(2)(b) of the BNS. 2. Earlier, the first bail application of the applicants was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in MCRC No.10050/2025, on merits. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that the FIR was lodged by one Ajay RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Kumar Dubey who is Priest/Pujari of Nageshwar Temple Risai Para alleging therein that in the intervening night of 05-06-2025 and 06-06- 2025, some unknown persons broken the lock of temple and stolen the sum of Rs.30,000- 40,000/- which was kept in the donation box. Subsequently the matter being investigated by the police and initially the applicants alongwith other accused persons have been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. The applicants are in jail since 29.08.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 5. 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. It is further submitted that the applicants along with other co-accused are involved in a series of thefts committed in several temples at different places and their involvement has surfaced from memorandum statements recorded in Crime No.165/2025, wherein they admitted to have committed several such offences at different locations, the material collected thus far indicates that the applicants were part of an organized group engaged in the systematic commission of temple thefts, moreover, there are a total of 7 criminal cases registered against the applicants including the present one, and so far as the 6 cases are concerned, they are still pending and the bail applications of the applicants with respect to the said cases have already been rejected by this Court, therefore, the 3 applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that the applicants along with other co-accused are involved in a series of thefts committed in several temples at different places and their involvement has surfaced from memorandum statements recorded in Crime No.165/2025, wherein they admitted to have committed several such offences at different locations, the material collected thus far indicates that the applicants were part of an organized group engaged in the systematic commission of temple thefts, moreover, there are a total of 7 criminal cases registered against the applicants including the present one, and so far as the 6 cases are concerned, they are still pending and the bail applications of the applicants with respect to the said cases have already been rejected by this Court, which shows that applicants are habitual offenders and they have misused the bail granted to them earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the 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 applicants on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of applicants - Mohammad Munaf Khatri and Tahira Bano, involved in Crime No. 149/2025, registered at Police Station City Kotwali Dhamari, District – Dhamtari 4 (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A) read with Section 3(5), and 111(2)(b) of the BNS, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 10. 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 Rajshekhar