1 CGHC010216152026 2026:CGHC:40400 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5891 of 2026 Nathmal Soni S/o Late Champalal Ji Soni Aged About 51 Years R/o Bednath Colony, Basantpur, P.S. Basantpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, P.S. Balod, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mrs. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 180/2025 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305, 112, 238, 317(4), 317(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNS). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per Final Report No. 198/2025 is that, a written complaint lodged on 27.04.2025 by Chandrabhan Singh stating that between 16:00 hours on 26.04.2025 and 01:00 hours on 27.04.2025, unknown persons committed housebreaking and theft at his residence in Village Jhalmala, stealing gold and silver ornaments 2 along with cash of 10,000/-, estimated valuation about 5,94,400/-. ₹ ₹ During investigation, co-accused persons Arif Khan, Anwar Khan, and Raju Meshram were apprehended, who disclosed in their memorandum statements that they committed serial thefts and sold the stolen articles to the present applicant, Nathmal Soni. Consequently, the applicant was arrested, and on the basis of his disclosure statement, gold and silver ornaments valued 14,85,750/-, cash of 20,000/-, melting ₹ ₹ apparatus, and an unnumbered motorcycle were recovered from his premises. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons recorded while in police custody, which carry no evidentiary value in terms of Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short, BSA). He would further submit that the applicant was not named in the FIR, nor is there any CCTV footage or independent eyewitness connecting him to the alleged theft. He would also submit that there is a discrepancy between the total stolen property reported in the FIR ( 5,94,400/-) and the ₹ alleged recovery from the applicant ( 14,85,750/-), showing that the ₹ legitimate inventory of a practicing jeweler has been falsely depicted as stolen articles. Learned counsel would argue that similarly situated co-accused Rajesh Soni, has already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6406 of 2025. He would contend that the applicant is in jail since 15.05.2025; the charge- sheet has already been filed, out of 33 prosecution witnesses only 4 have been examined so far, and the trial is likely to take considerable time; thus, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the bail application filed by the applicant and would submit that the applicant is 3 a habitual offender. The applicant is actively facilitating an organized theft syndicate. She would argue that the applicant has criminal history consisting of 11 criminal antecedents of a similar nature, all of which are pending consideration before various competent courts. He would contend that huge quantities of gold and silver jewelry, along with melting equipment used for dismantling and altering stolen ornaments, have been seized directly from the residential-cum-business premises of the applicant. 5. Learned State counsel would further contend that looking to the gravity of the offences, the applicant's modus operandi, and his persistent involvement in similar crimes, he cannot claim parity with other co- accused persons, and releasing him would pose a grave risk of repeating similar offences and tampering with material prosecution witnesses; thus, she would pray that the bail application may be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival contentions, and perused the case diary as well as the charge-sheet. 7. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the recovery of substantial quantities of jewelry and melting apparatus from the premises of the applicant, and particularly the fact that the applicant has as many as 11 criminal antecedents of similar nature pending trial, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is a habitual offender. Looking to his extensive criminal track record, the applicant cannot claim parity with co-accused Rajesh Soni, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim