1 - Pradeep Soni S/o Sachin Soni, Aged About 23 Years R/o Munsakhedi Shanti v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakri, Distri
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6115 of 2025 1 - Pradeep Soni S/o Sachin Soni, Aged About 23 Years R/o Munsakhedi Shanti Nagar Indore, Police Station Tilaknagar, District Indore (M.P.) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 - Anil Bhuriya S/o Jam Singh Bhuriya, Aged About 30 Years R/o Tarsinga, Police Station Thanda, District Dhar (M.P.) 3 - Sohabat Singh Bhuriya S/o Mangar Singh, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Geta, Police Station Thanda, District Dhar (M.P.) --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) --- Non-applicant(s) MCRC No. 6306 of 2025 1 - Pradeep Soni S/o Sachin Soni Aged About 23 Years R/o Munsakhedi Shanti Nagar Indore, Police Station Tilaknagar, District Indore (M.P.) 2 - Anil Bhuriya S/o Jam Singh Bhuriya Aged About 30 Years R/o Tarsinga, Police Station Thanda, District Dhar (M.P.) 3 - Sohabat Singh Bhuriya S/o Mangar Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Geta, Police Station Thanda, District Dhar (M.P.) --Applicant(s) 2 Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Non-applicant(s) MCRC No. 6307 of 2025 1 - Pradeep Soni S/o Sachin Soni Aged About 23 Years R/o Munsakhedi Shanti Nagar Indore, Police Station Tilaknagar, District Indore (M.P.) 2 - Anil Bhuriya S/o Jam Singh Bhuriya Aged About 30 Years R/o Tarsinga, Police Station Thanda, District Dhar (M.P.) 3 - Sohabat Singh Bhuriya S/o Mangar Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Geta, Police Station Thanda, District Dhar (M.P.) ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicants/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/08/2025 Order on Board 1. Since the above three bail applications are arising out of similar incidents registered at same police station and also the applicants are same in above three bail applications but their crime numbers are different, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Applications under 3 Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.104/2025 and Crime No.100/2025 and Crime No.101/2025 respectively, registered at Police Station- Sakri District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305-A, 331(4), 3(5) of BNS. (Note Section 3(5) of BNS is not mentioned in para 5 of the order dated 10.07.2025 but the same has been mentioned at para 11). 3. In MCRC No. 6115/2025, the case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Lalit Sharma, lodged a report at Sakri Police Station, District Bilaspur, on 27.02.2025, stating that on 23.02.2025, at around 07:00 PM, he locked his house and left with his family for the Prayagraj Mahakumbh Mela, Uttar Pradesh. On 26.02.2025, at about 07:30 PM, his neighbor, Bhavana, informed him over the phone that the doors of his house were open. During a video call, it was seen that the lock of the house was broken and jewelry boxes and other items were scattered. Upon returning home on 27.02.2025, he found that some unknown person(s) had broken into his house and committed theft of the following items i.e. One gold chain weighing 12 grams, one gold locket weighing 1.5 grams, two pairs of gold earrings, one pair of gold earrings (different design), three gold bangles, five pairs of silver anklets, seven pairs of silver toe rings, one silver spoon and bowl, one child’s silver bracelet (Chuda) and waistband (Kardhan), two silver rings. All the jewelry items were old and used, along with one silver 4 coin, totaling an approximate value of ₹95,000/-. Based on this report, an FIR was registered at Sakri Police Station against an unknown accused under Sections 331(4), 305(A), and 3(5) of the B.N.S., and investigation commenced. During the investigation, it was revealed that in connection with Crime No. 366/2024 registered at Pandri Police Station, District Raipur, for offence under Sections 331(4), 305(A), and 3(5) BNS, the accused persons Pradeep Soni, Anil Bhuria, and Sohbat Singh were taken into custody on 02.03.2025 and their memorandum statements were recorded. In their statements, they also confessed to committing theft in Anshma City, Bilaspur. The stolen property from the house of the complainant Ashish was recovered from the possession of the above-mentioned accused persons in connection with Crime No. 366/2024 registered at Pandri Police Station. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the applicants before the competent Court. 4. In MCRC No. 6306/2025, the case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Ashish Kaushik lodged a report at Sakri Police Station, District Bilaspur, on 26.02.2025, stating that on 14.02.2025, at about 09:00 PM, he had locked his house and gone with his family to Prayagraj Mahakumbh Mela, Uttar Pradesh. On returning home on 26.02.2025, at around 06:00 AM, he found that the main door’s central lock was broken. On entering the house with his family, he noticed that the locks of the almirahs kept in the bedroom and the hall were broken and the belongings were scattered. On checking, he discovered that the following items had 5 been stolen by an unknown person i.e. cash amounting to ₹2,000/, a gold bindiya, a silver anklet, worth approximately ₹40,000/- On this basis, an FIR was registered at Sakri Police Station against an unknown accused under Sections 331(4), 305(A), and 3(5) of the BNS, and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, information was received that in Crime No. 366/2024, registered at Pandri Police Station, District Raipur, under Sections 331(4), 305(A), and 3(5) IPC, the accused persons Pradeep Soni, Anil Bhuria, and Sohbat Singh were taken into custody on 02.03.2025, and their memorandum statements were recorded. In their statements, they confessed to committing theft in Anshma City, Bilaspur as well. The stolen property from the house of the complainant Ashish was recovered from the possession of the said accused persons in connection with Crime No. 366/2024 of Pandri Police Station. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused before the competent Court. 5. In MCRC No. 6307/2025, the case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Priyanshu Mishra lodged a report at Sakri Police Station, District Bilaspur, on 26.02.2025, stating that on 19.02.2025, at around 07:00 PM, he locked his house and went with his family to Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, to attend his sister’s wedding. On returning home on 26.02.2025, at about 08:00 AM, he found that the latch on the main door was broken. On entering the house, he noticed that the lock of the almirah in his room was broken, the belongings were scattered, and the following items were missing from the almirah i.e. cash amounting to ₹30,000/-, 6 one gold ring, one pair of silver anklets, the total value of the stolen property was approximately ₹60,000/-. The theft had been committed by some unknown person(s). On this basis, an FIR was registered at Sakri Police Station against an unknown accused under Sections 331(4), 305(a), and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code, and the matter was taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, information was received that in connection with Crime No. 366/2024, registered at Pandri Police Station, District Raipur, under Sections 331(4), 305(A), and 3(5) of BNS, the accused persons Pradeep Soni, Anil Bhuria, and Sohbat Singh were taken into custody on 02.03.2025, and their memorandum statements were recorded. In their statements, they confessed to committing theft in Ashma City, Bilaspur, as well. The stolen property from the house of the complainant was recovered from the possession of the said accused persons in connection with Crime No. 366/2024 of Pandri Police Station. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused before the competent Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations of the offence which has been registered against the applicants are not sustainable and they are being innocent deny the commission of the offence. He further submits that the prosecution’s objection that the applicants have committed the offences separately or in furtherance of a common intention is baseless. There is no eye witness in the case. The case is based on circumstantial evidence, all the links of which are not so inter connected as to establish the 7 commission of the crime by the accused persons. The properties allegedly stolen have not been seized from the possession of the applicants and further false and fabricated memorandums and property seizure sheets have been prepared by the police whereas no such memorandum was given by the applicants nor any property was seized from their possession. The applicants have been falsely implicated. He further submits that besides the present cases, one more is pending under similar nature whose crime No. 366/2024 and the applicants are in jail since 17.03.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 7. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the allegation against the applicants are that they have committed theft in the complainants house by broken their door’s lock when the complainants went outside from their house and during the course of investigation and on the basis of their memorandum statement they confessed that they have committed theft in alleged places further the theft articles i.e. gold and silver ornaments which have been stolen by the accused persons have sold to another person in Madhya Pradesh. She further submits that besides the present cases, each applicants have one criminal antecedent for similar offence. Accordingly, the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 8 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations leveled against the applicants, and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, it is evident that the allegations against the applicants are that they committed theft of cash and gold and silver ornaments from the complainant’s house by breaking the door lock when the complainants and his family were away. During the course of investigation and on the basis of their memorandum statements recorded in another case earlier registered against them for a similar offence, the applicants confessed to have committed the theft at the alleged place. It has also come on record that the stolen articles, i.e., gold and silver
Decision
ornaments, were disposed of by the accused persons by selling them to another person in Madhya Pradesh. Furthermore, apart from the present case, each of the applicants has one previous criminal antecedent for a similar offence, which is still pending, clearly indicating that they are habitual offenders. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the offence, and the rising trend of such crimes, this Court is of the firm opinion that the present case is not fit for granting bail to the applicants. 10. Accordingly, the bail applications of the applicants namely- Pradeep Soni, Anil Bhuriya and Sohabat Singh Bhuriya, involved in Crime No.104/2025 and Crime No.100/2025 and Crime No.101/2025 respectively, registered at Police Station- Sakri 9 District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 305-A, 331(4), 3(5) of BNS, is rejected. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 12. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal