1 2026:CGHC:25384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5423 of 2026 1 - Roshan Ratre S/o Shri Malik Ram Ratre Aged About 21 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk Boriya Kala, Police Station Mujgahan District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Kamal Jangde S/o Derharam Jangde Aged About 43 Years R/o Satnami Para, Police Station Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.06.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.575/2025, registered at Police Station- Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(2) and 3(5) of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, the complainant lodged an FIR against unknown persons regarding the theft of his Activa scooter, which had been parked in front of the Court premises. The allegation KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 against the present applicants are that they were intercepted by the Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, and upon their disclosure/memorandum statements, it was revealed that the applicants had been involved in the theft of Activa scooters at various places for the last two years and had allegedly committed theft of approximately 36 two-wheelers. On the basis of the aforesaid information, FIRs have been registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further submitted that the FIR does not disclose the names of the present applicants and falls within the category of an unnamed FIR. He contends that the prosecution has projected an unusual case against the applicants inasmuch as their implication is primarily based on their memorandum/disclosure statements, which by themselves have limited evidentiary value in the ordinary course of law. It is also submitted that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence is imprisonment up to three years or fine, and, therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. The applicants are in judicial custody since 24.01.2026. Learned counsel further submits that although the other bail applications preferred by the same applicants in connection with different crime numbers, namely MCRC No. 5281/2026 and MCRC No. 5293/2026, were rejected on merits by this Court vide orders dated 18.06.2026, and another bail application bearing MCRC No. 5461/2026 was also dismissed on merits vide order dated 22.06.2026, the present case arises out of a distinct crime number and, therefore, the present bail application deserves to be considered independently on its own 3 merits. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. It is further submitted that both the applicants have multiple criminal antecedents of a similar nature. Applicant No. 1, Roshan Ratre, and Applicant No. 2, Kamal Jangde, are involved in Crime Nos. 311/2025, 07/2026, 517/2025, 507/2025 and 499/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur, as well as Crime No. 06/2026 registered at Police Station Gole Bazar, District Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Learned State Counsel submits that the applicants are habitual offenders and their repeated involvement in similar offences disentitle them from the discretionary relief of bail. It is further submitted that the other bail applications of applicants have already been rejected by this Court. Considering the criminal antecedents of the applicants, the nature of the allegations and the rejection of bail, it is prayed that the present bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the memorandum statements of the applicants and the consequent recoveries and the record reveals that 8 stolen Activa scooters have been recovered from the possession of Applicant No.1 and 2 stolen Activa scooters have been recovered from the possession of Applicant No.2, which prima facie corroborates the prosecution case regarding their involvement in vehicle thefts. 4 Further the fact that both the applicants are habitual offenders and apart from the present case, six other criminal cases of similar nature are pending against each of them, namely Crime Nos. 575/2025, 311/2025, 517/2025, 507/2025 and 499/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, and Crime No. 06/2026 registered at Police Station Gole Bazar, Raipur, under Sections 303(2), 317(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. In view of the substantial recoveries made at the instance of the applicants, and their repeated involvement in offences of similar nature, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicants - Roshan Ratre and Kamal Jangde, involved in Crime No. 575/2025 registered at Police Station - Civil Lines Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice 0. . Kunal