AHSAN @ AHSAS vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010333322026 2026:CGHC:38901
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8180 of 2026
Ahsan @ Ahsas S/o Late Kalu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Namla Rai,
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Police Station Kairana, District Shamili, Uttar Pradesh.
... Applicant
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.09.02
16:41:10 +0530

versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, Police Station Nandini, District Durg
(C.G.) ... Non-applicant

For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.09.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 292/2025, registered at Police Station -
Nandini, District Durg (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections
331(4), 305(a), 62, 324(4) & 3(5) of the BNS.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.11.2025 at about 02:00
2.
AM, the landlord, namely Gaind Lal Nirmalkar, telephonically informed
the Cash Operator that some unknown miscreants had arrived in a

2
white Tata Matador bearing Registration No. CG-07-AV-1310 and
were vandalizing the ATM machine with an intention to commit theft.
Upon hearing the commotion, the landlord and local residents rushed
to the spot, whereupon the miscreants abandoned the vehicle and the
vandalized ATM machine and fled from the spot. On the morning of
13.11.2025, the higher officials lodged the FIR against unknown
persons for attempting to commit theft and causing damage to the
ATM/property. During the course of investigation, Police Station
Madhav Nagar, District Katni (M.P.), informed the investigating agency
that the present applicant, in his disclosure/confessional
memorandum recorded in connection with an independent offence
registered at Police Station Madhav Nagar, had allegedly disclosed
his involvement in an attempted ATM burglary in District Durg (C.G.).
On the basis of the said disclosure statement, the present applicant
was implicated and formally arrested in the present crime.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
crime on account of grave suspicion and misidentification and has not
committed the alleged offence; that the offences alleged against the
applicant are not punishable with imprisonment for life and, therefore,
he is entitled to the benefit of bail; that the FIR was lodged against
unknown persons and the complainant neither named the applicant
nor provided any credible description sufficient to establish his identity
as the perpetrator; that the applicant has been arrested solely on the
basis of the memorandum of co-accused Aarif recorded in connection
with Crime No. 1016/2025 registered at Police Station Madhav Nagar,

3
Katni (M.P.), whereas there is no memorandum of the present
applicant in the said crime; that even as per the memorandum of co-
accused Aarif, there is no specific statement alleging that the applicant
participated in the attempt to steal the ATM at Durg, Chhattisgarh; that
no incriminating material has been recovered or seized from the
exclusive physical possession of the applicant and there is no direct or
corroborative evidence connecting him with the alleged offence; that
the investigation qua the applicant is substantially complete and no
further custodial interrogation or recovery is required, particularly
when the other accused persons are absconding; that the continued
incarceration of the applicant would serve no further investigative
purpose and may amount to pre-trial punishment; that the applicant is
the sole breadwinner of his family, has been in custody since
24.03.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to reach its
logical conclusion, causing grave emotional and financial hardship to
his family; that the applicant is a permanent resident of the given
address and there is no likelihood of his absconding or influencing the
prosecution witnesses or tampering with the evidence; and that the
applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all the
terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. On
these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the
applicant may kindly be released on regular bail.
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. It is
further submitted that the present applicant has as many as seven

4
criminal antecedents, out of which six cases are pending, while one
case has been disposed of, details whereof are as follows: (i) Crime
No. 406/2018, Police Station Mawana, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 323, 342, 354-B,
376, 377, 494 and 498-A of the IPC/BNS, which has been disposed
of; (ii) Crime No. 664/2024, Police Station Anti Power Thief, Uttar
Pradesh, under Section 135(A) of the Electricity Act, which has been
disposed of; (iii) Crime No. 1016/2025, Police Station Madhav Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 305(A), 324(5) and 331(4) of the BNS,
which is pending; (iv) Crime No. 09/2016, Police Station Doghat, Uttar
Pradesh, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the IPC, which is
pending; (v) Crime No. 325/2017, Police Station Doghat, Uttar
Pradesh, under Section 174-A of the IPC, which is pending; (vi) Crime
No. 335/2025, Police Station Vajirabad, Delhi, under Section 303(2) of
the BNS, which is pending; and (vii) Crime No. 181/2018, Bhopal,
under Sections 147, 323, 354-B, 420, 452, 504 and 506 of the IPC,
which is pending. It is contended that the aforesaid criminal
antecedents demonstrate the applicant's repeated involvement in
criminal cases and indicate his propensity to indulge in criminal
activities. It is further submitted that, if the applicant is released on
bail, there is every likelihood of his repeating similar offences and
misusing the liberty granted to him. Therefore, considering the nature
and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the applicant and the
likelihood of misuse of the liberty of bail, the applicant is not entitled to
the discretionary relief of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.

5
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also
considering that the applicant has not disclosed his seven criminal
antecedents before this Court, it appears that he has suppressed a
material fact. The criminal antecedents of the applicant show that he
is a habitual offender. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC
559 , has held that the criminal antecedents of an accused are an
important factor while considering a bail application. Therefore, in view
of the applicant's criminal history and suppression of material facts,
this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant regular bail
to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be
rejected.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Ahsan @ Ahsas,
involved in Crime No. 292/2025, registered at Police Station - Nandini,
District Durg (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4),
305(a), 62, 324(4) & 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Vaibhav