1 2026:CGHC:3397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 98 of 2026 Deep @ Dhruva Kumar Mistry S/o Profullo Mistry Aged About 37 Years R/o Satnami Para Parsada 3, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O.cer P/s Devbhog, District Gariyaband, C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 20.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 181/2025, registered at Police Station Devbhog, District Gariyaband, (C.G.) for alleged commission of o=ence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305, 317(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Narayan Meher lodged a report at the concerned Police Station RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 stating that he has been operating Shri Hari Jewellers at a rented premises of Ishwar Agrawal in Devbhog for about one month. It is alleged that between 24.06.2025 at 8:00 PM and 25.06.2025 at 9:00 AM, an unknown person broke open the shutter of the jewelry shop and stole silver and gold articles, including 22 silver anklets, 6 silver bracelets, 2 silver glasses, 7 silver bangles, 6 silver idols, 10 gold guaranteed necklaces, 8 small gold guaranteed necklaces, and 9 gold guaranteed “so fees” necklaces, valuing a total of Rs. 97,600/-. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 181/2025 was registered at Devbhog Police Station under Sections 331(4), 305, 317(2), and 3(5) of B.N.S., and the investigation is underway. It is further alleged that the co-accused disclosed that the stolen jewelry was sold to the present applicant/accused, indicating his prima facie involvement in the o=ence. The o=ences registered against the applicant/accused, and the police report indicates that the applicant is absconding. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application has been Cled. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as prima facie the ingredients of the alleged o=ence under Section 317(2) of B.N.S. are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the entire prosecution case is false, baseless, and fabricated, based on incorrect and concocted facts, and that the only allegation against the applicant arose from the memorandum of the prime accused claiming that the stolen articles were sold to the applicant and his wife, Preeti Mistry, who has already been granted bail by 3 the Court, the facts of which are akin to the present case (Annexure A/3). The o=ence alleged is punishable with a maximum imprisonment of three years or Cne or both, and the protective provisions of Section 35(3) of B.N.S. as held in Arnesh vs. State of Bihar and the principle in Satendar Kumar Antil vs. CBI have not been complied with, making the applicant entitled to bail. He further submits that the present applicant has total three cases at the same time including the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant is a middle-class man, employed in a private job to maintain his family, and arrest at this stage would cause undue hardship to his family, whereas he is fully willing to cooperate with the investigation, and the trial is likely to take substantial time. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the o=ences registered against the applicant are serious and of heinous nature, involving the theft of jewelry valued at Rs. 97,600/-, and the co- accused have disclosed that the stolen articles were sold to the present applicant, indicating his prima facie involvement. It is further submitted that the applicant is reported to be absconding, and granting anticipatory bail at this stage would jeopardize the investigation and the applicant’s presence before the Court. He also submits that the present applicant has three other cases pending, including the present case, and that bail has already been rejected 4 in two of these cases. Therefore, it is submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the o=ences alleged against the applicant are of serious nature, involving theft of jewelry valued at Rs. 97,600/-, and the co-accused have disclosed that the stolen articles were sold to the present applicant, indicating his prima facie involvement. Further, the applicant is reported to be absconding and has multiple cases pending against him, in two of which bail has already been rejected. Granting anticipatory bail at this stage would seriously impede the ongoing investigation and endanger the applicant’s appearance before the Court. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the absconding nature of the applicant, and the risk of interference with the investigation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Deep @ Dhruva Kumar Mistry, involved in Crime No. 181/2025, registered at Police Station Devbhog, District Gariyaband, (C.G.) for alleged commission of o=ence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305, 317(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan