1 2026:CGHC:27199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5812 of 2026 Kuleshwar Pandey @ Raja S/o Late Jeevan Lal Pandey Aged About 24 Years (Age Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order), R/o Beside Pooja Kirana Store, Kailash Nagar, Birgaon, P.S. Urla, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Urla, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Chaitanya Gilhare, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 83/2026 registered at Police Station – Urla, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report alleging that some unknown persons had committed theft in RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 his house situated at Shahid Nagar, Birgaon, and had stolen gold and silver ornaments, cash amounting to Rs. 5,000/-, and a Nokia mobile phone kept inside an almirah. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the present crime for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the course of investigation, the present applicant came to be implicated on the basis of suspicion and the memorandum statements of the co-accused. It is the case of the prosecution that one Nokia mobile phone, alleged to be part of the stolen property, was recovered from the possession of the present applicant pursuant to his memorandum statement. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested in connection with the present case. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is contended that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, and the present applicant came to be implicated only during the course of investigation, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case against him. It is further submitted that the applicant has been arraigned as an accused merely on the basis of memorandum statements and that, except for the alleged recovery of one Nokia mobile phone, which is stated to be part of the stolen property, no other incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. It is argued that the memorandum statement, by itself, is insufficient to establish the 3 involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. He further submits that the offence alleged is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that the co-accused, namely Rajendra Pandey, has already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 15.04.2026 passed in Bail Petition No. 1024/2026, and the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing. With regard to the criminal antecedents, he fairly submits that three previous cases are reflected against the applicant. Out of them, one case bearing Crime No. 348/2020 registered at Police Station Urla, Raipur under Sections 380, 457 and 34 of the IPC has already been disposed of on 15.11.2025; another case bearing Crime No. 246/2023 registered at the same police station under Sections 380, 457 and 34 of the IPC culminated in acquittal vide judgment dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur; and only one case, namely Crime No. 245/2023 registered under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC, is presently pending for prosecution evidence before the learned JMFC, Raipur. It is, therefore, submitted that the mere existence of criminal antecedents, particularly when one case has ended in acquittal, one has already been disposed of, and the remaining case is still pending trial, cannot by itself be a ground to deny the benefit of bail. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 28.03.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed, no further custodial interrogation is required, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the 4 applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of house-breaking and theft. It is contended that, during the course of investigation, the involvement of the applicant surfaced on the basis of the memorandum statements of the accused persons and, pursuant thereto, stolen property, namely one Nokia mobile phone and a silver chain belonging to the complainant, was recovered from the possession of the present applicant, thereby lending corroboration to the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the recovery of the stolen articles from the possession of the applicant constitutes a strong prima facie circumstance connecting him with the commission of the alleged offence. He further submits that the applicant is a habitual offender having three criminal antecedents of similar nature. Out of the said cases, two relate to offences punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC, one of which is still pending trial before the competent Court, while another case under Sections 380, 457 and 34 of the IPC has already been disposed of, and though the applicant has been acquitted in one case, the repeated registration of similar offences against him clearly indicates his continuous involvement in property-related crimes. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the recovery of stolen articles from the possession of the applicant, his criminal antecedents showing a pattern of similar offences, and the 5 likelihood of his indulging in such activities again if released on bail, it is prayed that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, and the recovery of the stolen property, namely one Nokia mobile phone and a silver chain belonging to the complainant, from the possession of the present applicant pursuant to his memorandum statement, this Court is of the opinion that there exists sufficient prima facie material connecting the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence. The recovery of the stolen articles from the possession of the applicant lends corroboration to the prosecution case at this stage. This Court has also taken into consideration the criminal antecedents of the applicant. Though one of the previous cases has culminated in acquittal and another has been disposed of, it cannot be ignored that the applicant has been repeatedly involved in offences of a similar nature, and one criminal case under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC is still pending trial. The recurring involvement of the applicant in property-related offences indicates that he is a habitual offender, and his criminal antecedents cannot be lightly brushed aside while considering the prayer for bail. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the recovery of stolen property from the applicant, the prima facie material available on record, and his criminal antecedents reflecting a pattern of similar offences, this Court is of the opinion that it is not 6 a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Kuleshwar Pandey @ Raja, involved in Crime No. 83/2026 registered at Police Station – Urla, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a) 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul dewangan