1 CGHC010333322026 2026:CGHC:38901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8180 of 2026 Ahsan @ Ahsas S/o Late Kalu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Namla Rai, Police Station Kairana, District Shamili, Uttar Pradesh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, Police Station Nandini, District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2026 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. 292/2025, registered at Police Station - Nandini, District Durg (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 62, 324(4) & 3(5) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.11.2025 at about 02:00 AM, the landlord, namely Gaind Lal Nirmalkar, telephonically informed the Cash Operator that some unknown miscreants had arrived in a VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.09.02 16:41:10 +0530 2 white Tata Matador bearing Registration No. CG-07-AV-1310 and were vandalizing the ATM machine with an intention to commit theft. Upon hearing the commotion, the landlord and local residents rushed to the spot, whereupon the miscreants abandoned the vehicle and the vandalized ATM machine and fled from the spot. On the morning of 13.11.2025, the higher officials lodged the FIR against unknown persons for attempting to commit theft and causing damage to the ATM/property. During the course of investigation, Police Station Madhav Nagar, District Katni (M.P.), informed the investigating agency that the present applicant, in his disclosure/confessional memorandum recorded in connection with an independent offence registered at Police Station Madhav Nagar, had allegedly disclosed his involvement in an attempted ATM burglary in District Durg (C.G.). On the basis of the said disclosure statement, the present applicant was implicated and formally arrested in the present crime. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime on account of grave suspicion and misidentification and has not committed the alleged offence; that the offences alleged against the applicant are not punishable with imprisonment for life and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of bail; that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the complainant neither named the applicant nor provided any credible description sufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator; that the applicant has been arrested solely on the basis of the memorandum of co-accused Aarif recorded in connection with Crime No. 1016/2025 registered at Police Station Madhav Nagar, 3 Katni (M.P.), whereas there is no memorandum of the present applicant in the said crime; that even as per the memorandum of co- accused Aarif, there is no specific statement alleging that the applicant participated in the attempt to steal the ATM at Durg, Chhattisgarh; that no incriminating material has been recovered or seized from the exclusive physical possession of the applicant and there is no direct or corroborative evidence connecting him with the alleged offence; that the investigation qua the applicant is substantially complete and no further custodial interrogation or recovery is required, particularly when the other accused persons are absconding; that the continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no further investigative purpose and may amount to pre-trial punishment; that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family, has been in custody since 24.03.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion, causing grave emotional and financial hardship to his family; that the applicant is a permanent resident of the given address and there is no likelihood of his absconding or influencing the prosecution witnesses or tampering with the evidence; and that the applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant may kindly be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the present applicant has as many as seven 4 criminal antecedents, out of which six cases are pending, while one case has been disposed of, details whereof are as follows: (i) Crime No. 406/2018, Police Station Mawana, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 323, 342, 354-B, 376, 377, 494 and 498-A of the IPC/BNS, which has been disposed of; (ii) Crime No. 664/2024, Police Station Anti Power Thief, Uttar Pradesh, under Section 135(A) of the Electricity Act, which has been disposed of; (iii) Crime No. 1016/2025, Police Station Madhav Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 305(A), 324(5) and 331(4) of the BNS, which is pending; (iv) Crime No. 09/2016, Police Station Doghat, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the IPC, which is pending; (v) Crime No. 325/2017, Police Station Doghat, Uttar Pradesh, under Section 174-A of the IPC, which is pending; (vi) Crime No. 335/2025, Police Station Vajirabad, Delhi, under Section 303(2) of the BNS, which is pending; and (vii) Crime No. 181/2018, Bhopal, under Sections 147, 323, 354-B, 420, 452, 504 and 506 of the IPC, which is pending. It is contended that the aforesaid criminal antecedents demonstrate the applicant's repeated involvement in criminal cases and indicate his propensity to indulge in criminal activities. It is further submitted that, if the applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood of his repeating similar offences and misusing the liberty granted to him. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the applicant and the likelihood of misuse of the liberty of bail, the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering that the applicant has not disclosed his seven criminal antecedents before this Court, it appears that he has suppressed a material fact. The criminal antecedents of the applicant show that he is a habitual offender. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, has held that the criminal antecedents of an accused are an important factor while considering a bail application. Therefore, in view of the applicant's criminal history and suppression of material facts, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Ahsan @ Ahsas, involved in Crime No. 292/2025, registered at Police Station - Nandini, District Durg (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 62, 324(4) & 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav