High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 / 5 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR 2025:CGHC:25379 MCRC No. 4056 of 2025 • Pradeep @ Babu Haldar S/o Late Shri Ramesh Haldar Aged About 57 Years R/o Village P.V. 25 Ramkrishnapuram P.S. Pakhanjur, Tehsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) versus ... Applicant • State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, P.S. Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent WITH MCRC No. 4107 of 2025 • Nilratan Mandal S/o Thakurdas Mandal Aged About 35 Years R/o P.V. 125, Baikunthpur, Police Station - Pankhanjur, District - North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh versus ... Applicant • State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Pankhanjur, District - North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent WITH MCRC No. 4372 of 2025 1. Jitendra Bairagi S/o Deenbandhu Bairagi Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- P.V.- 28, Chandipur, Police Station- Pankhanjure, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 2. Surjeet Bala @ Sarojeet S/o Late Shivcharan Bala Aged About 45 Years R/o- Village- P.V.-36, Chandipur, Police Station- Pankhanjure, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) versus ... Applicants • State Of Chhattisgarh through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Pankhanjure, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
For Applicants (in MCRC : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate, Mr. ... Respondent PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 No. 4056/2025) Mahesh Mishra and Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate in MCRC No. 4107/2025 in MCRC No. 4372/2025 For Respondent-State For Resp.-Objector : : : : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Govt. Advocate Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 18/06/2025 1. Applicant-Pradeep @ Babu Haldar in MCRC No. 4056/2025 has filed third bail application, applicant in MCRC No. 4107/2025- Nilratan Mandal and applicants in MCRC No. 4372/2025- Jitendra Bairagi and Surjeet Bala have filed second bail applications under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 4/2024 registered at Police Station – Pakhanjur, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 201, 34 of IPC and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 07.01.2024 at about 08:00 pm, applicants along with other co-accused persons have murdered of Aseem Rai. The incident was reported to the concerned police station, based upon which aforementioned crime was registered and during course of investigation, applicants were also arrested along with other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submit that applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime. The police after investigation has filed charge-sheet and in the charge-sheet there is no connecting piece of evidence available against these applicants. They submit that three co-accused persons namely Samit Manjhi, Tapan Mandal and Bappa Gangoli have been released on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3063/2025 on 09.05.2025 and MCRC No. 4066/2025 on 29.05.2025 respectively and the case of present applicants is also on similar footings. They submit that there are as many as 100 enlisted 3 / 5 witnesses out of which 10 witnesses have been examined before the trial court. Applicants are in custody since 24.03.2024, 11.01.2024, 12.01.2024 and thereby completed more than one year and five months of pre-trial detention. Hence, they may also be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants and further submits that in the case diary co-accused Vikas Talukdar was hired to shoot out the deceased by the accused persons and other co-accused persons and accordingly Vikas Talukdar has shot dead Aseem Rai by opening fire upon him through pistol. As per the allegation available in the case diary, co-accused persons have made arrangement of money for purchase of weapon used for causing murder of Aseem Rai. The police has also seized mobile phone from the accused persons and as per the material collected by the investigating agency it is appearing that all the accused persons were connected to each other through mobile phone and were also found present nearby the place of incident. Police has also seized CDR to prove the location of applicants. There are eight criminal antecedents against applicant Pradeep Haldar out of which four cases are of prohibitory nature for offence under Section 107 and 116 of CrPC, one case is of the year 2001 for offence under Section 341, 294, 506 of IPC, one case is of the year 2010 and 2011, one case is of the year 2004 for offence under Section 147, 341, 323, 452 of IPC and one of the 2005 for offence under Section 147, 149, 294, 323 of IPC. There are five criminal antecedents against applicant Nilratan in which two offence included for offence under Section 302 of the year 2007 and 2009 and one case is against applicant Jitendra Bairagi for offence under Section 498-A and 34 of IPC of the year 2023. It is the submission of applicants that the co-accused persons who have said to be released by this Court was stated to be persons who used to do reki (observation) of deceased and nearby places to keep an eye on the deceased. 4 / 5 5. 6. Learned counsel for objector made arguments on the same line. At this stage, learned counsel for applicants submits that in the charge-sheet the allegation against all the co-accused persons except Vikas Talukdar, the allegation against all other accused persons is of hatching conspiracy and therefore the allegations against applicants are one and the same as against the co-accused named above who have been released on bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, and further material collected by the investigating agency and considering that the applicants have been made accused based on their memorandum statement, report of CDR is still awaited, as also considering that the other similarly situated co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow these applications. 9. Accordingly, bail applications are allowed. It is directed that the all the applicants shall be released on regular bail, upon each of the applicant furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- (a) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (b) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 / 5 (c) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE