1 CGHC010174672026 2026:CGHC:30005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4143 of 2026 Pradeep Patel S/o- Shri Johan Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o- Village- Sagar Para, Basantpur, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through, Station House Officer, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15 .07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 317/2025 registered at Police Station – Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 309(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Lokesh Sinha, lodged a report on 19.07.2025 at Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), stating that he was going to visit Devdhar Baba Dham, Rajnandgaon, along with his friend Vishalnand. At about 4:30 PM, when they reached near Raju Building Material Shop, three unknown PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.16 11:37:56 +0530 2 persons arrived on a black Honda Shine motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 08 AT 5918 and stopped in front of them. One of the accused allegedly threatened the complainant with a knife and demanded money. Out of fear, the complainant initially handed over Rs.100/-. However, the accused allegedly assaulted him and demanded more money, whereupon the complainant gave them Rs.500/- from his pocket. Thereafter, all three accused fled from the spot on the motorcycle. Subsequently, upon making inquiries from nearby shopkeepers, the complainant came to know that the accused persons were Pradeep Patel (resident of Sagar Para), Ghanshyam Joshi, and Saket Lanjewar. Thereafter, he lodged the report at the police station. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the offence against the present applicant and the other co-accused persons. During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested, and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no proper Test Identification Parade was conducted in accordance with law to establish the identity of the applicant. He further submits that no recovery of the alleged robbed amount, the weapon (knife), or any other incriminating material has been made from the possession of the applicant. It is also submitted that, although the applicant has 16 previous criminal antecedents, no explanation with regard to the said antecedents has been furnished by the applicant, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 20.07.2025. Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of 3 bail to the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed. She further submits that, vide order dated 05.05.2026 passed by this Court, learned counsel for the applicant was directed to furnish a proper explanation regarding the applicant's 16 previous criminal antecedents. However, when the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not furnished any explanation in compliance with the said order. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail application of the applicant be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and other material available on record, it appears that vide order dated 05.05.2026 passed by this Court, learned counsel for the applicant was directed to furnish a proper explanation regarding the applicant's 16 previous criminal antecedents, however, when the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not furnished any explanation in compliance with the said order and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused on the ground of previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. 7. Accordingly the bail application of the applicant, namely, Pradeep Patel involved in Crime No. 317/2025 registered at Police Station – Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 309(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, is rejected. 4 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 Preeti