1 2026:CGHC:18391 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3637 of 2026 Habib Khan Late Firoz Khan Aged About 22 Years R/o Janta Colony Qtr, No. 391 Gudhiyari, Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station Gudhiyari District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.04.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.0381/2025 registered at Police Station – Gudgiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 126(2), 351(2) and 119(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. According to the prosecution story, the complainant, Adi Singh Rajpur, lodged a written report at Police Station Gudhiyari alleging that on 12.08.2025 at about 20:00 hours, while he was going from Ambedkar Chowk, Udiya Basti to his grandmother’s house in Gudhiyari, the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.04.23 17:54:18 +0530 2 applicant came on a motorcycle, forcibly stopped him, and demanded money to consume liquor. Upon his refusal, the applicant used filthy language and assaulted him. Thereafter, Police Station Gudhiyari registered a First Information Report bearing Crime No. 0381/2025 on 12.08.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 127(1), 351(2), and 119(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that at the time of the incident, there was a simple dispute between the parties with regard to previous enmity, however, the applicant neither assaulted the injured person nor committed any of the aforesaid offences as alleged by the prosecution. He also submits that the injured person sustained injuries which are simple in nature, not grievous, and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion, without any sufficient reason. He also submits that in this case, the statements of prosecution witness No. 01 (Adi Rajput), Witness No. 02 (Tarak Nishad), and Witness No. 03 (Akash Kumar Rajput) do not support the case of the prosecution. He submits that as per information received by the local counsel, the applicant has 05 criminal antecedents apart from the present case. He submits that the applicant has been in jail since 12.08.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. She further submits that, as per the allegations, on 12.08.2025 at about 20:00 hours, while the complainant was proceeding to his grandmother’s house, the applicant wrongfully restrained him, demanded money for liquor, and 3 upon refusal, abused and assaulted him. It is further submitted that the applicant has as many as 10 criminal antecedents, which clearly reflects his habitual nature and propensity to commit offences. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and his antecedents, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the State, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court finds that the applicant is alleged to have wrongfully restrained the complainant, demanded money, and upon refusal, abused and assaulted him. Further, it is not disputed that the applicant has as many as 10 criminal antecedents, which prima facie indicates his habitual involvement in criminal activities and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Habib Khan Late Firoz Khan, involved in Crime No.0381/2025 registered at Police Station – Gudgiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 126(2), 351(2) and 119(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 7. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek