1 CGHC010340362026 2026:CGHC:43445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8498 of 2026 * - Virendra Singh S/o Late Nirmal Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o- Village- Gumagaon, Harshit Harmony Colony, Raipur (C.G.), Police Station- Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Non-Applicant And MCRC No. 8885 of 2026 * - Virendra Singh S/o Late Nirmal Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Gumagaon Harshit Harmony Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Police Station Urla, District- Raipur, (C.G.) Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet As Birendra Singh S/o Nirmal Singh Aged About 40 Kabir Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Applicant Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant And MCRC No. 8889 of 2026 * - Virendra Singh S/o- Late Nirmal Singh, Aged About 40 Years R/o- Village- Gumagaon, Harshit Harmony Colony, Raipur (C.G.), Police Station- Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet As Birendra Singh S/o Nirmal Singh Aged About 40 Kabir Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Applicant Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.10.08 11:24:46 +0530 2 And MCRC No. 8936 of 2026 * - Virendra Singh S/o Late Nirmal Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Gumagaon Harshit Harmony Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Police Station - Urla, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet As Birendra Singh S/o Nirmal Singh Aged About 40 Kabir Nagar Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Applicant Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) Chhattisgarh, --- Non-Applicant And MCRC No. 8943 of 2026 * - Virendra Singh S/o Late Nirmal Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Gumagaon, Harsht Harmony Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Police Station Urla, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet As Birendra Singh, S/o Nirmal Singh Aged About 40 Years, Kabir Nagar Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-Applicant And MCRC No. 9088 of 2026 * - Virendra Singh S/o Late Nirmal Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Gumagaon, Harshit Harmony Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Police Station Urla, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet As Birendra Singh S/o Nirmal Singh Aged About 39 Ghumagavn Harshit Harmony Coloney Thana Urla Distt. Raipur. --- Applicant Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Arjunda, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Arjit Tiwari and Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocates For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General 3 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/10/2026 1. As all these are the bail applications under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preferred by the same applicant arise out of different crime numbers i.e. Crime Nos. 269/2026; 268/2026; 159/2026; 278/2026 & 279/2026 registered at Police Station- Balod, District Balod (CG) and Crime No. 89/2026 registered at Police Station- Arjunda, District Balod (CG) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 3(5), 112(2) and 317(2) of BNS, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. MCRC No. 8498/2026; MCRC No. 8885/2026; MCRC No. 8889/2026; MCRC No. 8936/2026 & MCRC No. 8943/2026 are the first bail applications and MCRC No. 9088/2026 is the second bail application as earlier bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 17.09.2026 passed in MCRC No. 8644/2026. 3. As per case of prosecution, the present applicant committed theft of 220 liters of diesel from truck of complainant namely Vijay Sahare in the intervening night of 10th-11th April, 2026. F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant on 11.04.2026 which was registered against unknown person. Subsequently, 05 more F.I.Rs. was lodged by other complainants making allegation of theft of diesel from their vehicles on 05.06.2026, 12.06.2026 and 14.06.2026. During course of investigation, police arrested the applicant on 17.06.2026 and on the basis of his memorandum statement, seized 450 liters of diesel and registered 06 F.I.Rs. on the same date. 4. Mr. Arjit Tiwari and Ms. Pratibha Sahu, learned Advocates appearing 4 for the applicant would contend that the applicant is innocent person; he has falsely been implicated and one seizure memo has been annexed along with charge-sheet of all criminal cases. They would submit that the applicant is in jail from 17.06.2026 and except these six cases, the applicant has no criminal record. Thus, they would pray for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose. He would contend that the present applicant is a person who committed theft of diesel from different vehicles on different dates. Subsequently, he was arrested on 17.06.2026 and on his instance 450 liters of diesel was seized. He would contend that the applicant himself confessed that he was the person who committed theft of diesel in all crime numbers registered against him. He would submit that as the applicant has 05 criminal records, therefore, these bail applications deserve to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Having considered the fact that on 17.06.2026 the applicant was taken into custody and on the same date six F.I.Rs. were registered making allegation that he committed theft of diesel in two vehicles on 05.06.2026; one vehicle on 11.04.2026; two vehicles on 12.06.2026 and one vehicle on 14.06.2026. The quantity of diesel indicated in six F.I.Rs. are different, but the police has seized only 450 liters of diesel from possession of the applicant; further charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail from 17.06.2026 and except these six cases registered on same date, there is no criminal antecedent of 5 the applicant, therefore, I am inclined to grant these bail applications. Accordingly, all the bail applications are allowed. 8. It is directed that, in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in each case, with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, the applicant shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions :- I. He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such fact to the Court; II. He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; III. He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till the disposal of the trial; and, IV. He shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature in future. 9. The observation made in the course of this order is only for considering the case of the applicant on the applications for the grant of regular bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any observation made in the course of this order. 10. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti