1 2026:CGHC:1088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 8 of 2026 Deep @ Dhruva Kumar Mistry S/o Profullo Mistry Aged About 37 Years R/o - Satnami Para Parsada 3, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P/s Devbhog, District Gariyaband, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.106/2025 registered at Police Station – Devbhog District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305, 317(2) & 3(5) of the BNS. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.08 18:36:15 +0530 2 2. According to the prosecution story, the complainant lodged a report at the concerned police station alleging theft at his dwelling house, on the basis of which an FIR was registered against unknown persons under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). During the course of investigation, the prime accused was arrested, and in his memorandum statement he disclosed that the stolen articles had been sold to the present applicant and his wife. On the basis of the said disclosure, offence under Section 317(2) of the BNS was subsequently added against the applicant. It is further the prosecution case that during investigation, the wife of the applicant, namely Preeti Mistry, was arrested in connection with the same allegations and was thereafter granted bail by the learned Court below. The prosecution alleges that the applicant is similarly placed as his wife, as the only allegation against him is of receiving the stolen property. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that in the present case, as prima facie the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against him and the entire prosecution story is false, baseless, and fabricated. The only allegation against the applicant arises from the memorandum statement of the prime accused, who stated that the stolen articles were sold to the applicant and his wife, pursuant to which offence under Section 317(2) of the BNS was 3 added. It is pertinent to mention that during investigation, the wife of the applicant, namely Preeti Mistry, was arrested on identical allegations and has already been granted bail by the learned Court below, and thus the case of the applicant stands on the same footing, entitling him to the benefit of parity. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the sole allegation against the applicant is under Section 317(2) BNS, which is punishable with imprisonment up to three years or with fine or both, and therefore his case falls squarely within the protective ambit of the judgment of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar; however, instead of issuing notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the police have acted arbitrarily in seeking his arrest. It is further submitted that in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that non-compliance of the said mandatory provisions entitles the accused to the benefit of bail. The applicant is a middle-class person working in a private job and is the sole bread earner of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents and tarnish the reputation of his respectable family. The alleged offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death, and the investigation and trial are likely to take considerable time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. Learned State Counsel strongly opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits that, on the intervening night of 12– 13.04.2025, unknown persons committed theft in the jewellery 4 shop of the complainant by breaking the front counter glass and the bathroom wall, and decamped with silver ornaments weighing about 4 kg 300 grams, valued at approximately Rs. 2,70,000/-. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 106/2025 was registered at Police Station Devbhog under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the BNS, and during the course of investigation, Sections 317(2) and 3(5) of the BNS were subsequently added. It is further submitted that during investigation, it has come on record that the co- accused persons sold the stolen jewellery to the present applicant/accused, which clearly establishes his role in dealing with the stolen property. In view of the material collected during investigation, the applicant appears to be prima facie involved in the registered crime. Considering the serious nature of the offence, the recovery of the stolen property, and the active role attributed to the applicant, the learned State Counsel submits that this is not a fit case for granting the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, it is evident that the complainant has lodged a report regarding the theft of silver ornaments worth approximately Rs.2,70,000/- from his jewellery shop. The investigation has further revealed that the 5 co-accused persons sold the stolen jewellery to the present applicant, which prima facie establishes his involvement in the offence of dealing with stolen property. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Deep @ Dhruva Kumar Mistry, involved in Crime No.106/2025 registered at Police Station – Devbhog District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305, 317(2) & 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav