1 CGHC010350492026 2026:CGHC:42705 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8819 of 2026 Vimal Rajwade @ Nanbau S/o Shivnarayan Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Talabpara, P S- Bishrampur District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Bishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Kaushalya Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY) Order on Board 01/10/2026 1. The applicant has preferred the first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.65/2026, registered at Police Station Bishrampur, District. Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305, 331(4), 111(2) & 3(5) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 27.02.2026, the applicant and co-accused persons entered a mobile shop and committed theft of 18 new mobile sets and 10 old sets. During the course of investigation, the applicant and co-accused persons were arrested and were taken into custody on 08.03.2026 and stolen articles were seized. Based on these allegations, the aforesaid offences was Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.10.03 10:19:47 +0530 2 registered against the present applicant, as stated above. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has 3 criminal antecedents of similar nature registered in the year 2022, 2023 and 2025, out of which, the applicant has already been acquitted in connection with criminal case registered in the year 2023 whereas the cases registered in the year 2022 & 2025 are still pending consideration. She would further submit that charge-sheet has been filed; the applicant is in jail since 08.03.2026 and conclusion of trial may take some considerable time. She would, therefore, pray for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is a habitual offender and, if released on bail, is likely to commit a similar offence. Therefore, it is submitted that the bail application of the present applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the criminal antecedents of similar nature and the stolen articles were seized from the possession of the present applicant and co-accused persons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Anjani