1 - Nageshwar Ratre S/o Kanwal Das Ratre, R/o Ward No. 18, Mattu Para v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bemetara, District- Bemetara
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32459 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4959 of 2025 1 - Nageshwar Ratre S/o Kanwal Das Ratre, R/o Ward No. 18, Mattu Para Kirwai, Police-Thana-Simga, District- Balodabazar C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravind ra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 10/07/2025 1. 2. VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.11 19:15:13 +0530 Heard on the application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, 2023). This is the first bail application before this Court filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail. The applicant was arrested on 05.02.2024 in connection with Crime No. 37 of 2024 registered at P.S. Bemetara, 2 District Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201 and 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution's case is that the police of the police station City Kotwali, Bemetara, received information on 03.02.2024 that a person was lying in an injured condition at Simga-Bemetara main road, near the village of Basni. The police sent him to the hospital, but during treatment, he died. Merg was informed to the police. Injuries have been found on the body, and near the place of incident, his broken tooth, blood-stained Gamcha and blood stains on the soil were found. During the investigation, police came to know that three people were seen near the place of the incident, which Dikeshwar Sahu witnessed. FIR has been registered, and in the post-mortem, the cause of death of the deceased was opined due to Traumatic asphyxia as a result of aspiration of blood in the respiratory passage due to homicide. The dead body was identified as he was Vijay Verma. During the investigation, it was revealed that the deceased was having a dispute with his brother-in-law, Lalit Verma and when his mobile call details was interrogated, the persons who connected with the applicant disclosed that he prepared a plan and hired the other co-accused persons, and gave them contract to kill the deceased. As per their plan, the co-accused persons Deva, Somesh and Gulshan have committed murder of the deceased, and thrown the weapon of offence i.e. knife in the pond. The co-accused Lalit Verma gave Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to middleman Tukaram Verma, from whom Rs. 2 Lakhs were paid to Deva, Somesh and Gulshan. 3 Considering the evidence collected during the investigation, the present applicant and other co-accused persons were arrested and charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. The applicant is neither named in the FIR, nor seen on the spot by the witness committing murder of the deceased. Only on the basis of call details, the present applicant has been arrayed as an accused in the present case, which is inadmissible piece of evidence. No test identification parade of the applicant was conducted. There is no incriminating article seized from the present applicant and there is no sufficient evidence to implicate him in the offence in question, even there is no material with respect to the conspiracy with the other accused persons. From the present applicant, his mobile phone and cash of Rs. 15,000/- has been seized and there is no incriminating material recovered from the mobile phone of the applicant. Except the memorandum statement of the applicant, no other evidence is there against him. The applicant is in jail since 05.02.2024, the trial of the case is not in considerable progress and its final adjudication will take its own time, therefore, he may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the present case is of contract killing. The co-accused Lalit Verma hired the other accused persons through the co-accused Tukaram Sahu and the present applicant introduced his cousin 4 brother Dev Kumar @ Deva Tandon with Tukaram Sahu and they entered into conspiracy to commit murder of deceased Vijay Verma and negotiated. They prepared a plan for his murder and thereafter certain money transactions have also been made through the mobile phone of the present applicant. The present applicant, in furtherance of the conspiracy had gone to the school of the deceased and informed the location of the deceased to other accused persons and after commission of the murder of the deceased, the co-accused Deva informed him about completion of the work and asked for remaining amount of contract. The co-accused Lalit Verma handed over Rs. 2.5 lakhs to him and then he handed over the same to Deva and his friends. He received Rs. 15,000/- from the contract amount, which has been seized from him. From the call details of the applicant, there is conversation with other accused persons at the relevant point of time, and thus, there is sufficient evidence against him in the charge sheet. He would also submit that the bail application of the co-accused Lalit Verma has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2025, passed in MCRC No. 2765 of 2025. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail. 6. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Considering the rival submissions made by the parties, nature of death of the deceased, evidence available in the charge-sheet against the applicant, the statements of the witnesses and relationship between the deceased and the co-accused Lalit Verma, 5 the evidence of conspiracy, their mobile call details and the manner in which the accused persons hatched conspiracy and acted thereof, further, the trial of the case is in advance stage and 07 witnesses have already been examined, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant Nageshwar Ratre is rejected. Certified copy as per rules. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge