1 CGHC010384772026 2026:CGHC:42683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9265 of 2026 1 - Kamal Jangde S/o Derharam Jangde Aged About 43 Years R/o Satnami Para Police Station Kurud District Dhamtari C. G. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines Raipur District Raipur C. G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Keshav Gupta, GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 01.10.2026 1) The applicant has preferred this second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 07/2026 registered at Police Station -Civil Lines Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Earlier first bail application of the applicant bearing MCRC No.5293 of 2026 was 2 rejected on merits vide order dated 18.06.2026. 2) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged an FIR regarding theft of his Activa scooter parked at Gate No. 2 of the District Court. During investigation, the present applicant was intercepted and, on the basis of his memorandum statement, he was allegedly found involved in theft of about 36 two-wheelers. Certain recoveries were also effected, leading to registration of the present crime. Thereafter, he was arrested. Hence, this bail application. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the name of the applicant does not find place therein. He further submits that the prosecution case is primarily based on his memorandum statement and there is no direct evidence connecting him with the alleged offence. The six criminal antecedents of the applicant have been explained in the bail application. It is also submitted that earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits in MCRC No. 5293 of 2026 vide order dated 18.06.2026. It is also argued that seizure witnesses have been examined and have not supported the case of the prosecution. He would contend that the applicant is in jail since 24.01.2026, the charge- sheet has been filed, and the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that 8 stolen Activa scooters were recovered from the possession of the applicant pursuant to his memorandum statement. He further submits that the applicant has six criminal antecedents of similar nature. He would further submit that the first bail 3 application of the applicant was rejected on merits and there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) It is a well-settled principle of law that, while considering a bail application, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or undertake a detailed examination of the evidence. The reliability and credibility of the witnesses are matters to be assessed by the learned Trial Court during the course of trial. 7) Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the memorandum statement of the applicant and the consequent recovery of 8 stolen Activa scooters from his possession, which prima facie corroborates the prosecution case regarding his involvement in vehicle thefts, and further considering the fact that the applicant has six criminal antecedents of similar nature, as well as the fact that his first bail application was rejected on merits by a detailed order in MCRC No. 5293 of 2026, and no substantial change in circumstances has been brought on record since the rejection of the earlier bail application, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha