1 CGHC010321662026 2026:CGHC:37148 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7677 of 2026 Sanjay Kurre S/o- Devprasad Kurre Aged About 32 Years R/o- Village Bagdabari, P.S. Balauda Tahsil - Balauda, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O5cer, P.S. Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Lalit Jangde, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 368/2026, registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the o<ences punishable under Sections 303(2), 111, 309(4), 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.05.2026, the complainant Sanjay Agrawal lodged a report at Police Station KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Sirgitti stating that during the intervening night of 19.05.2026, truck No. CG-10-R-1066 was parked in front of the Beverage Corporation, Sirgitti, and an unknown person had committed theft of 294 liters of diesel, valued at Rs.28,529/-, from the diesel tank of the said truck. During investigation, the accused/applicant Sanjay Kurre, Manishankar Kurre and Amit Bharadwaj were taken into custody and their memorandum statements were recorded, wherein they disclosed that along with their associates, namely Shubham Kurre, Bhuru Khunte, Deva Khunte, Vivek Sahu, Purusottam Yadav, Montu Khunte and Leelaram Kurre, they had committed the theft of diesel. It is further alleged that when the truck driver Mahaveer Soni woke up on hearing the noise, accused Sanjay Kurre and Shubham Kurre threatened him by placing a knife on his neck and thereafter the stolen diesel was sold to Ayush Shukla. The applicant was thereafter arrested in connection with the aforesaid o<ence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the FIR was initially registered against an unknown person and the applicant has been implicated only on the basis of the memorandum statement. Learned counsel further submits that no incriminating article was seized from the possession of the applicant and the diesel allegedly seized by the prosecution was not recovered from his possession. He further submits that co- accused namely Manishankar Kurre has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.7425/2026 vide order dated 12.08.2026 3 and, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 27.05.2026 and so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the same have been explained in the bail application in Part-D under the head “Criminal Antecedents”. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has total 08 criminal antecedents, out of which 07 cases have already been explained by the applicant, whereas one case of the year 2025 has not been explained. It is further submitted that out of the aforesaid criminal antecedents, 02 cases are also related to organized crime. Learned State counsel further submits that the applicant has been found involved in the present o<ence and a knife as well as a Scorpio vehicle has been seized from him. It is further submitted that although co-accused Manishankar Kurre has been granted bail by this Court, he was also having criminal antecedents, but the number of criminal antecedents of the present applicant is more than that of the said co-accused. Therefore, the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused and looking to his criminal antecedents and the material collected during investigation, he is a habitual o<ender and is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, 4 nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the material collected during investigation, the fact that a knife and Scorpio vehicle have allegedly been seized from the applicant and further considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, wherein he has total 08 criminal antecedents, out of which 07 have been explained and one case of the year 2025 remains unexplained, including 02 cases relating to organized crime, this Court is of the view that the applicant's case is distinguishable from that of co-accused Manishankar Kurre, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2026. Though the said co- accused was also having criminal antecedents but the number of criminal antecedents attributed to the present applicant is higher as such, it appears that the present applicant is a habitual o<ender, 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 Ft case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Sanjay Kurre, involved in Crime No. 368/2026, registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the o<ences punishable under Sections 303(2), 111, 309(4), 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to 5 proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. O5ce is directed to provide a certiFed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal