1 CGHC010238672026 2026:CGHC:31515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5805 of 2026 Lokesh Shrivas S/o Kapil Shriwas Aged About 34 Years R/o Kailash Nagar, Near Vivekananda School, Ward No. 03, Kawardha, Police Station - City Kotwali, District - Kawardha, Kabirdham (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As Lakesh In Cause Title Of Impugned Order). ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Civil Lines District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.56/2026, registered at Police Station- Civil Lines, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305 of BNS. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution case, complainant Shiv Kumar Verma lodged a report stating that during the intervening night of 31.01.2026 and 01.02.2026, some unknown persons trespassed into his garment shop namely "Lub-Dub" by breaking open the tin- shed roof and committed theft of Rs.2,75,000/- in cash. It is further alleged that in the CCTV footage, the person entering the shop had covered his face with a cloth and therefore, could not be identified. During the course of investigation, it was also revealed that theft had been committed in two other establishments, namely "Noya Furniture", from where Rs.1,40,000/- in cash was allegedly stolen, and "Designer Sanitation and Hardware", from where Rs.2,85,000/- in cash was found missing. During investigation, the present applicant came to be implicated and, pursuant to his memorandum statement, cash amounting to Rs.79,000/- and other articles were allegedly recovered from his possession. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and the applicant was subsequently implicated only on the basis of his memorandum statement, which by itself has little evidentiary value. It is further submitted that even according to the FIR, the person seen in the CCTV footage had covered his face with a cloth and could not be identified. Learned counsel further submits that although the learned trial Court has relied upon the 3 recovery of one Samsung mobile phone while rejecting the bail application, no such mobile phone was ever alleged to have been stolen in the FIR and the allegations therein relate only to theft of cash. It is also submitted that the applicant is a daily wage labourer and his presence in the locality during daytime was only for seeking employment. It is further submitted that the investigation has been completed, charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in judicial custody since 07.02.2026. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, learned counsel submits that the applicant has 13 criminal antecedents, which have been duly explained in Part-D (Criminal Antecedents) of the bail application. It is submitted that Criminal Antecedent Nos. 1 to 4 were registered on the same day at the same police station and in all those cases the applicant has already been acquitted. It is further submitted that Criminal Antecedent Nos. 5 to 12 were also registered on the same day, out of which the applicant has been acquitted in two cases, whereas the remaining seven cases are still pending, in all of which the applicant has already been enlarged on bail. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that during the course of investigation, cash amounting to Rs.79,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant pursuant to his memorandum statement. It is further submitted that the investigation has disclosed prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of the 4 alleged offence. Learned State counsel further submits that out of the 13 criminal antecedents, seven criminal cases of similar nature are still pending against the applicant, though he has been granted bail therein, which clearly reflects his habitual involvement in offences of similar nature. It is, therefore, submitted that considering the recovery effected from the possession of the applicant, his criminal antecedents and the gravity of the allegations, the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it appears that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons in connection with theft committed from three commercial establishments during the intervening night of 31.01.2026 and 01.02.2026. During investigation, the present applicant came to be implicated and cash amounting to Rs.79,000/- is stated to have been recovered from his possession pursuant to his memorandum statement. On a pointed query being put by this Court regarding the source of the recovered amount, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the said amount pertains to the applicant's agricultural income. However, such explanation, at this stage, cannot be accepted merely on the basis of a bald submission and the same is a matter of evidence to be examined during trial. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the recovery of Rs.79,000/- 5 from the possession of the applicant, the material collected during investigation, the fact that though the applicant has explained his 13 criminal antecedents, seven criminal cases of similar nature are still pending against him and there being no satisfactory explanation at this stage regarding the recovered amount as such present applicant is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. 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, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Lokesh Shrivas, involved in Crime No.56/2026, registered at Police Station- Civil Lines, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305 of BNS, is rejected. 8. 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 Kunal