1 CGHC010266462026 2026:CGHC:30185 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6345 of 2026 Jwala Bairagi S/o Late Ghanshyam Aged About 38 Years Near Old Bus Stand Powerhouse, Bhilai Tehsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- S H O Police Station Jamul, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2026 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. 179/2026 registered at Police Station – Jamul, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 304(2) and 112(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.03.2026, at about 07:15 A.M., the complainant, namely Shashi Gaur, was standing near the gate of her daughter’s rented accommodation situated close to the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Housing Board Green Water Tank, Bhilai, when an unknown person riding a Honda Activa scooter allegedly snatched the gold necklace (Gehun Dana pattern), valued at approximately Rs. 30,000/-, from her neck and fled from the spot. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, Crime No. 179/2026 was registered at Police Station Jamul, District Durg, against an unknown person for the aforesaid incident. During the course of investigation, on the basis of information received from a police informant and other material collected by the investigating agency, the present applicant came under suspicion and was subsequently implicated in the crime. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested in connection with the aforesaid offence and, upon completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was filed before the competent Court. 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. It is contended that the FIR was lodged against an unknown person and, apart from a vague description of the vehicle allegedly used in the commission of the offence as being maroon in colour, neither the identity of the offender nor the registration number of the vehicle was mentioned in the complaint. He further submits that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted after the arrest of the applicant, thereby rendering his identification doubtful. It is further submitted that the only article seized from the possession of the applicant is a Honda Activa scooter of white colour, whereas, according to the prosecution case, the alleged snatching was 3 committed by a person riding a maroon-coloured vehicle. He contends that the applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion and that the stolen gold necklace or any other incriminating article has not been recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that the present applicant has 06 previous criminal antecedents and he is on bail in all the cases, the applicant is in jail since 21.03.2026, 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 applicant. 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. She further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and that sufficient material has been collected during the course of investigation indicating his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail merely on the ground that the complainant initially lodged the report against an unknown person or that no Test Identification Parade was conducted. She further submits that the applicant has an extensive criminal history and is a habitual offender, having as many as six previous criminal antecedents registered against him during the years 2025 and 2026, all of which are of a similar nature and are presently pending consideration before the competent Courts. The repeated involvement of the applicant in offences of a like nature reflects a 4 continuing propensity to commit such crimes and raises a reasonable apprehension that, if released on bail, he may again indulge in similar criminal activities. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of repetition of offences, 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 the course of investigation, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further the fact that though it has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the FIR was lodged against an unknown person, no Test Identification Parade was conducted, and the stolen ornaments have not been recovered from his possession, such submissions cannot be appreciated in detail at this stage. The record further reveals that the applicant has as many as six previous criminal antecedents registered against him during the years 2025 and 2026, all of which are of a similar nature and are still pending before the competent Courts. The repeated involvement of the applicant in offences of a similar character prima facie indicates that he is a habitual offender and reflects a propensity to indulge in such criminal activities. In these circumstances, the possibility of the applicant repeating similar offences, if enlarged on bail, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, considering the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the nature of the accusations, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, 5 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, 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 applicant – Jwala Bairagi, involved in Crime No. 179/2026 registered at Police Station – Jamul, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 304(2) and 112(2) 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