1 CGHC010272712026 2026:CGHC:30452 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6374 of 2026 Omprakash Agariya @ Chakde S/o Tulsiram Agariya, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Navapara Tehda, P.S. Ghargoda District Raigarh. C.G. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office S.H.O. P.S. Ghargoda District Raigarh C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 17.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 63/2026, registered at Police Station - Ghargoda District Raigarh (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a),317(2), 3(5) of the BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, on the basis of a report lodged by the complainant, Manish Mahant, FIR bearing Crime No. 63/2026 was VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.20 10:44:31 +0530 2 registered at Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) alleging that during the intervening night of 22.02.2026, unknown persons committed house theft at the complainant's residence and decamped with gold and silver ornaments. During the course of investigation, the memorandum statement of the present applicant was recorded, wherein he allegedly disclosed that he, along with a child in conflict with law, had committed the theft, sold one pair of the stolen silver anklets to RG Jewellers for Rs.15,000/-, utilized a part of the sale proceeds, and, pursuant to his memorandum, one gold phuli and two silver bichhiya, alleged to be part of the stolen property, were recovered at his instance. On the basis of the material collected during the investigation, the applicant was implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 317(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was arrested on 24.02.2026, remanded to judicial custody, and, after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 24.02.2026. The investigation has been completed and the charge- sheet has already been filed on 07.04.2026; therefore, his further incarceration is neither necessary for the purpose of investigation nor justified, and would amount to pre-trial punishment, particularly when the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is further submitted that the prosecution case primarily rests upon the alleged 3 memorandum statement of the applicant and the consequent recovery, the evidentiary value of which is a matter to be appreciated during the course of trial. Merely because certain other criminal cases or preventive proceedings are stated to be pending against the applicant cannot, in the absence of any conviction, be a valid ground to deny bail. It is further submitted that the applicant is a young man of about 25 years of age and a permanent resident of District Raigarh (C.G.), having deep roots in society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the witnesses if released on bail. The applicant has cooperated with the investigation, has not violated any direction of the Court, and undertakes to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court, it is, therefore, prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that, although the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail in view of his criminal antecedents. It is submitted that as many as five criminal cases of a similar nature are pending against the applicant, namely Crime No. 64/2026, Crime No. 259/2018, Crime No. 179/2019, Crime No. 265/2020, and Crime No. 80/2022, registered at Police Station Gharghoda for offences including theft, house-breaking, offences under the NDPS Act, and other penal offences. Learned State Counsel contends that the pendency of these cases reflects the applicant's propensity to indulge in criminal activities and prima facie indicates that he is a habitual offender. It is further submitted that, if 4 released on bail, there is every likelihood that the applicant may indulge in similar offences or misuse the liberty granted to him, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking into account the fact that five cases are pending against the applicant, which clearly indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender, and further, in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused on the ground of having previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Omprakash Agariya @ Chakde, involved in Crime No. 63/2026, registered at Police Station - Ghargoda District Raigarh (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a),317(2), 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (RavindraKumar Agrawal) Judge vaibhav