1 2026:CGHC:1088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 10 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 Officer, P/s Devbhog, District Gariyaband, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 95/2025 registered at Police Station – Devbhog District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305, 317(2) & 3(5) of the BNS. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.08 18:36:15 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, the complainant lodged a report at the concerned police station alleging theft at his dwelling house, on the basis of which an FIR was registered against unknown persons under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). During the course of investigation, the prime accused was arrested, and in his memorandum statement he disclosed that the stolen articles had been sold to the present applicant and his wife. On the basis of the said disclosure, offence under Section 317(2) of the BNS was subsequently added against the applicant. It is further the prosecution case that during investigation, the wife of the applicant, namely Preeti Mistry, was arrested in connection with the same allegations and was thereafter granted bail by the learned Court below. The prosecution alleges that the applicant is similarly placed as his wife, as the only allegation against him is of receiving the stolen property. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that as prima facie the ingredients of the alleged offence are not attracted against him. The entire case of the prosecution is false, baseless, and fabricated, based on incorrect and concocted facts. It is submitted that the prime accused was arrested and, in his memorandum, stated that the stolen articles were sold to the applicant and his wife, pursuant to which offence under Section 317(2) BNS was added. It is pertinent to note that during 3 investigation, the wife of the applicant, Preeti Mistry, was also arrested and subsequently granted bail by the learned Court below, and the case of the applicant is similar to that of his wife (copy of bail order annexed as Annexure A/3). From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the only allegation against the applicant is under Section 317(2) BNS, which is punishable with imprisonment up to three years or with fine or both, and thus his case falls within the protective ambit of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar. The applicant and his wife were required to be noticed under Section 35(3) BNSS, but instead, the police are arbitrarily attempting to arrest him. Further, as held in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, non-compliance of such mandatory provisions entitles the accused to bail. The applicant is a middle-class person working in a private job to maintain his family, and his arrest would cause undue hardship to his family, who belong to a simple and well- respected household. The alleged offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death, and the investigation and trial are likely to take time; however, the applicant is ready and willing to fully cooperate with the investigation and abide by all directions of this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits that on the night of 29–30.03.2025, the locks of the complainant’s house were broken and valuables worth approximately Rs. 9,95,500/- were stolen. FIR No. 95/2025 was registered at Police Station Devbhog under Sections 331(4) and 4 305 BNS, and during investigation, Sections 317(2) and 3(5) BNS were added. Investigation revealed that the co-accused sold the stolen goods to the applicant, prima facie establishing his involvement. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the high value of the stolen property, and the applicant’s active role, this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, it is evident that the complainant, Shesh Narayan Patra, lodged a report regarding the theft of valuable items from his residence. As per the report, on the night of 29–30.03.2025, the locks of the front door and bedroom of his house were broken, drawers and cupboards were tampered with, and valuables including gold necklaces, bracelets, ear sets, rings, chains, and cash amounting to Rs. 3,75,000/-, with a total worth of approximately Rs. 9,95,500/-, were stolen. Investigation has further revealed that the co-accused persons sold the stolen goods to the present applicant, which prima facie establishes his involvement in dealing with stolen property. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the high value of the stolen property, and the active role attributed to the applicant in the transaction of the stolen goods, this Court is 5 of the considered opinion that the present case is not fit for the grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Deep @ Dhruva Kumar Mistry, involved in Crime No. 95/2025 registered at Police Station – Devbhog District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305, 317(2) & 3(5) of the BNS., is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav