1 CGHC010249312026 2026:CGHC:28428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6098 of 2026 Alam Khan S/o Hakim Ali Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Rampur, Badha Police Out Post Davra, Police Station Mandhata, District Pratapgarh (U.P.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station, Basantpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No.223/2025, registered at Police Station- Basantpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 179(1) of the M.V. Act, Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle preservation Act, Section 11(1)(d) of the MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.10 11:12:17 +0530 2 Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act and Section 111(2)(b) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on receiving secret information regarding the illegal transportation of cattle, the police intercepted a vehicle in which the applicant along with other co- accused persons was allegedly transporting cattle in a cruel manner for the purpose of slaughter. It is alleged that when the police signaled the vehicle to stop, the occupants did not comply and instead attempted to flee by driving the vehicle at a high speed. Thereafter, with the assistance of the Uttar Pradesh Police, the vehicle was chased and intercepted. According to the prosecution, upon being surrounded, the accused persons abandoned the vehicle and escaped from the spot. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was implicated in the alleged offence. On the basis of the said incident, the police registered the crime against the applicant and the other co- accused persons for the offences alleged against them. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has been arraigned solely on the basis of suspicion without any legally admissible material connecting him with the alleged offences. It is contended that the applicant was not apprehended from the spot, no recovery has been effected from his personal possession, and the prosecution has no direct evidence to establish that he was 3 driving the vehicle at the relevant time. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 11 criminal antecedents and the same have been explained in para D of the bail application. Further, the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.05.2026 and it may take some time to conclude the trial, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has as many as 11 previous criminal antecedents registered against him, which are stated to be pending. It is contended that some of the antecedents relate to offences similar to the present case, while others pertain to serious offences under the Explosive Substances Act, the POCSO Act, the Arms Act and other penal laws. It is, therefore, argued that the applicant is a habitual offender and does not deserve the benefit of bail. Accordingly, the State prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the fact that the applicant is having 11 previous criminal antecedents, pending against him out of which, some of the antecedents relate to offences similar to the present case, while others pertain to serious offences under the Explosive Substances Act, the POCSO Act, the Arms Act and other penal laws, which itself shows that applicant is a habitual offender hence, in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme 4 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, though the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.05.2026, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Therefore, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – Alam Khan involved in Crime No.223/2025, registered at Police Station- Basantpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 179(1) of the M.V. Act, Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle preservation Act, Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act and Section 111(2)(b) of the BNS, is rejected at this stage. 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 Manpreet