1 CGHC010308592026 2026:CGHC:35988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7466 of 2026 1 - Harsh Sidar @ Bittu S/o Santosh Sidar, Aged About 19 Years Resident Of Village - Sukhda, Police Station - Dabhra, District - Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Gulshan Bareth S/o Lakhan Bareth, Aged About 19 Years Resident Of Village - Sukhda, Police Station - Dabhra, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O*cer, Police Station - Malkharauda, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 179/2026 registered at Police Station - Malkharauda, District - Sakti, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 303(2), 324(3), 112 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Ramkumar Sahu submitted a written complaint stating that he is a resident of Village Kalmi and runs an electronic shop in the name and style of Rajendra Electronics at Village Kalmi. It is alleged that on 10.05.2026, as usual, he closed his shop at about 08:00 p.m. and went towards his house, while his Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-KX-2874 was parked in front of the shop, in which two bundles of electronic wire were kept. On the following morning, i.e. 11.05.2026, at about 05:30 a.m., when the complainant came out of his house, he noticed that the front and rear glasses of the Scorpio vehicle had been damaged and that two bundles of Riga Company electronic wire, valued at approximately Rs.7,000/-, kept in the rear portion of the vehicle, were missing and had allegedly been stolen by some unknown person. On the basis of the written complaint, Crime No.179/2026 was registered against unknown accused persons for the o<ences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 324(3) of the BNS. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that accused Harsh Sidar, who had been arrested in connection with Crime No.181/2026 registered at Police Station Malkharoda for the o<ences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 324(3) of the BNS, in his memorandum statement disclosed that he, along with co-accused Gulshan Bareth, Prakash Chandra @ Bittu and Ashish Sagar, had broken the front glass of the Scorpio vehicle parked on the roadside at Village Kalmi and had stolen two bundles of Riga Company electronic wire worth Rs.7,000/- kept therein. Pursuant to the 3 disclosure, cash amount of Rs.1,000/- and one bundle of electric wire were allegedly seized from the possession of the accused. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, whereas the applicants have subsequently been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that the alleged o<ences are triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and carry a maximum punishment of up to three years, therefore, considering the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration already undergone and the maximum sentence prescribed, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, learned counsel fairly submits that the applicants have eleven criminal antecedents, all pertaining to the year 2026 and involving allegations of similar nature, out of the said cases, bail applications preferred by the applicants in three cases have already been rejected, whereas in respect of three other cases, the applicants have preferred bail applications which are listed today at Serial Nos. 20, 67 and 71, respectively. It is thus submitted that, notwithstanding the aforesaid criminal antecedents, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail in the present case considering the nature of the allegations, the stage of the proceedings, the period of custody and the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged o<ences. He also submits that the applicants are in jail since 23.06.2026, the charge-sheet has been Hled and the trial is likely to 4 take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 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 applicants are involved in the present o<ence wherein, during investigation, their complicity has surfaced in connection with the theft of electronic wires from the Scorpio vehicle, and one bundle of electric wire along with cash of Rs.1,000/- has also been seized pursuant to the investigation. It is further submitted that the applicants have as many as eleven criminal antecedents, all pertaining to the year 2026 and involving o<ences of similar nature, which clearly reIects their repeated involvement in such criminal activities and weighs against their release on bail. She further submits that out of the said eleven cases, bail applications preferred by the applicants in three cases have already been rejected by this Court, whereas bail applications in respect of three other cases have been preferred by the applicants and are listed today at Serial Nos. 20, 67 and 71 respectively. It is thus submitted that the present case cannot be considered in isolation from the antecedents of the applicants and their repeated involvement in similar o<ences, and in view of the nature of allegations, recovery made during investigation, and their criminal antecedents, the applicants do not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and the applications are liable to be rejected. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and further the fact that the prosecution case indicates that the applicants, along with their co-accused, are alleged to have broken the glass of a Scorpio vehicle parked at Village Kalmi and stolen two bundles of electronic wire worth approximately Rs.7,000/-, and during investigation, one bundle of electric wire and cash amount of Rs.1,000/- were allegedly recovered. Though the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, the involvement of the applicants is stated to have surfaced during investigation. More importantly, the applicants have eleven criminal antecedents, all pertaining to the year 2026 and involving o<ences of similar nature, which prima facie indicates their repeated involvement in such o<ences. It is further signiHcant that out of the said eleven cases, bail applications preferred by the applicants in three cases have already been rejected, while bail applications in respect of three other cases have been Hled and are listed today at Serial Nos. 20, 67 and 71 respectively and the same are also rejected today itself by this Court. Thus, the present case cannot be considered in isolation from the repeated criminal antecedents of the applicants and the fact that their bail applications in three other cases have already been rejected. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the 6 alleged recovery, the repeated involvement of the applicants in similar o<ences and the overall conduct reIected from their criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a Ht case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicants – Harsh Sidar @ Bittu and Gulshan Bareth, involved in Crime No. 179/2026 registered at Police Station - Malkharauda, District - Sakti, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 303(2), 324(3), 112 and 3(5) 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. O*ce is directed to send a certiHed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul dewangan