Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25905 (CHH)

THAMESHWAR SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/4783/2026 · 2026-07-08

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010195122026 2026:CGHC:28756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4783 of 2026 Thameshwar Sahu S/o- Abhay Ram Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o- Village -Dhanora, Police Station Padhmanabhpur, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S H O Police Station Sanaud, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, G.A. HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER ON BOARD 09.07.2026 1. This is the 1st bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2026.07.10 14:51:46 +0530 2 bail to the Applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.02/2026 registered at Police Station – Sanaud, District- Balod (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 331 (4), 305, 62, 324 (4) and 3 (5) of B.N.S. 2. That, as per the prosecution story, in brief, on January 3, 2026, between 00:30 and 03:00 a.m., an unknown person entered the India One ATM located in the village of Sanoud, Gundardehi, Main Road, Dhamtari, and attempted to commit theft by vandalizing and damaging the ATM machine. Based on this report, a crime was registered and investigated. During the investigation, it was found from the RSM of Newai Police Station that the accused, Tejeshwar Jangde alias Chintu, had entered the ATM, vandalized it, and attempted to commit theft, causing damage worth approximately ₹30,000. In his memorandum statement, the name of the present applicant, Thameshwar Sahu, surfaced, stating that both of them had uprooted the ATM machine by fastening it to a car and pulling it with a sudden jerk, causing the upper part of the machine to break. As the machine was too heavy to lift, they abandoned it and fled. The applicant was arrested during the investigation, and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant 3 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there is no allegation of theft against the present applicant, prosecution has not conducted proper identification of the stolen article, nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant and only on the basis of memorandum statement of main accused the present applicant was arrested and he is in jail since 30.01.2026, charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, it is prayed that he may be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that there are 23 cases of similar nature registered against the applicant, charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, the present bail application of the applicant be rejected. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that there are previous cases which have been registered against the applicant, he is a habitual offender and charge sheet has been filed. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the allegations regarding the applicant's involvement in the crime in question, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar 4 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 applicant on regular bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Thameshwar Sahu involved in Crime No.02/2026 registered at Police Station – Sanaud, District- Balod (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 331 (4), 305, 62, 324 (4) and 3 (5) of B.N.S. is hereby rejected. 7. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Saurabh