1 CGHC010321412026 2026:CGHC:42117 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7731 of 2026 1 - Shiva Verma S/o Late Arun Verma Aged About 25 Years R/o Near Bijali Office, Bajrang Para Police Chowki, P.S. Dharisiwa, District- Raipur, Chhat- tisgarh. 2 - Rajendra Savra S/o Late Gopal Savra Aged About 25 Years R/o Near Bi- jali Office, Silyari P.S. Dharisiwa, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Ritika Verma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 512/2025, registered by the Police Station, Gudhiyari, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 305, 331(2) and 3(5) of BNS. 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at the concerned Police Station stating that, on the date of the incident, unknown persons had entered the shop and committed theft of cash amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- and a mobile phone. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the police registered a case under Sections 331(2), 305 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the present applicants on the basis of the memorandum statements. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicants were arrested merely on the basis of the memorandum statements and no incriminating article has been recovered from their possession. It is also submitted that the investigation is complete and the applicants are in custody since 12.06.2026. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the applicants may kindly be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that applicant No.1 has three criminal antecedents, whereas applicant No.2 has one criminal antecedent under the IPC of the year 2023. He further submits that in the present case, an amount of Rs.1,200/- was seized from applicant No.1 and Rs.800/- was seized from applicant No.2. It is further submitted that, in their respective memorandum 3 statements, the applicants have admitted that they had committed the theft. Therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that applicant No.1 has three and applicant No.2 has one criminal antecedent of theft, and further considering the fact that an amount of Rs.1,200/- was seized from applicant No.1 and Rs.800/- from applicant No.2, and applicants in their memorandum statements, admitted alleged allegations, though the charge-sheet has been filed, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant is rejected. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Jyoti