Bail denied where applicant has criminal antecedents despite charge sheet filing.

The applicant, Amit @ Aman Kotangale, filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for regular bail in connection with Crime No. 129/2025.

The complaint was registered at G.R.P. Police Station, Raipur, for an offence punishable under Sections 305(C) and 3(5) of the BNSS.

The prosecution's case was based on a report by Rohit Pal, who stated that his bag, containing a Redmi mobile phone, SIM card, ATM cards, Aadhaar card, company ID, and other items, was stolen from Train No. 12808 Samta Express on August 19, 2025, while travelling from Hazrat Nizamuddin to Rayagada.

The bag's disappearance was noticed on August 20, 2025, at Raipur Platform No. 3.

Subsequently, an FIR was lodged at GRP Rayagada, and Crime No. 129/2025 was registered at RPF Police Station Raipur against an unknown accused.

During the investigation, the applicant and co-accused Mohammad Hussain were detained and allegedly confessed to stealing mobile phones and wallets at railway stations.

The applicant was arrested and has been in judicial custody since December 21, 2025.

The applicant's counsel contended that the applicant was falsely implicated, no articles were seized from him, and his arrest was based solely on a memorandum statement.

The counsel also noted that the charge sheet had been filed, and the trial would take time.

The State counsel opposed the bail, highlighting that the applicant's counsel was unable to explain the applicant's five criminal antecedents, despite being granted time to do so on February 5, 2026.

1. Whether the applicant, Amit @ Aman Kotangale, should be granted regular bail given the allegations, the filing of the charge sheet, and his five criminal antecedents.

2. Whether the applicant's inability to explain his criminal antecedents impacts his eligibility for bail.

The court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

It also applied the principles established in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, which held that previous criminal antecedents could be a ground for cancelling bail.

The court implicitly considered factors typically relevant to bail applications, such as the nature of the allegations, the stage of the investigation (charge sheet filed), and the applicant's criminal history.

The Court noted that despite being granted time on February 5, 2026, the applicant's counsel was unable to explain the applicant's five criminal antecedents, stating that their local counsel could not provide instructions.

The Court considered this inability to explain prior criminal history a significant factor.

Based on the nature of the allegations against the applicant and the fact that he possesses five criminal antecedents, classifying him as a habitual offender, the Court applied the precedent set in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another.

In Deepak Yadav, the Supreme Court cancelled bail due to the accused's previous antecedents.

Connecting this principle to the present case, the Court concluded that the applicant's habitual offender status, evidenced by his prior criminal record, made this an unsuitable case for granting regular bail.

Accordingly, the bail application of applicant Amit @ Aman Kotangale, involved in Crime No. 129/2025, registered at G.R.P., Raipur, for offences under Sections 305(C) and 3(5) of B.N.S., was rejected.

The office was directed to send a certified copy of the order to the trial Court for necessary information.