Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1203 of 2025 Prakhar Singh Thakur Alias Mayank Singh Thakur S/o Harendra Singh Thakur Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Near B.E.O. OfÏcer, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Pali, Ps Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
accused persons are grave, serious, and prima facie supported by the statements of the complainant and other eye-witnesses named in the FIR. It is submitted that the incident was a brutal, pre- planned, and armed assault resulting in the death of the deceased, Rohit Jaiswal, allegedly carried out in furtherance of a common object by a large unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. The specific role attributed to each of the named accused, including direct allegations of stabbing by certain individuals, clearly discloses their active participation in the commission of the offence. The nature of the weapons used, the number of assailants involved, the motive behind the crime, and the injuries inflicted on the deceased, coupled with the injury caused to an intervening eye- witness, indicate that the offence is heinous in nature and falls within the category of crimes against human life. He also submits that the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused persons, namely, Surendra Singh Chauhan and Prabhat Dubey have already been rejected by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 672/2025 and 1073/2025 vide orders dated 08.05.2025 and 22.07.2025 and the bail application of the co-accused persons, namely, Durgesh Singh Thakur Alias Lala Thakur and Vivek Kumar Kaushik have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC Nos. 5829/2025 and 5720/2025 vide orders dated 25.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 5 respectively. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, perused the case diary as well as the material placed on record and the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant relate to a brutal, pre-planned, and armed assault resulting in the death of the deceased, allegedly committed in furtherance of a common object by a large unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. The FIR specifically names the applicant along with others, and the statements of the complainant and other eye-witnesses prima facie support the prosecution version. The gravity and heinous nature of the offence, the number of accused involved, the role attributed to the applicant in the unlawful assembly. Furthermore, the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused persons, namely, Surendra Singh Chauhan and Prabhat Dubey have already been rejected by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 672/2025 and 1073/2025 vide orders dated 08.05.2025 and 22.07.2025 and the regular bail application of the co-accused persons, namely, Durgesh Singh Thakur Alias Lala Thakur and Vivek Kumar Kaushik have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC Nos. 5829/2025 and 5720/2025 vide orders dated 25.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 respectively. As such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Prakhar Singh Thakur Alias Mayank Singh Thakur, involved in Crime No. 114/2025 registered at Police Station – Pali, District – Korba (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan
Arguments
: Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate appears through video conferencing. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 07 / 08 /20 25 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 114/2025 registered at Police Station – Pali, District – Korba (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on the night of 28.03.2025, at 2 about 10:20 PM, at the Saraipali open mine, a mob of more than 20 individuals, all named in the FIR, including Roshan Singh Thakur, Gaurav Singh Thakur, Vasu Thakur, Saurabh Shrivas, Sushant alias Sijju, Sanskar Thakur, and several others, allegedly armed with country-made axes, swords, knives, sticks, and gummis, unlawfully assembled at the mine gate. It is claimed that the deceased, Rohit Jaiswal, described as a “coal lifter and villety,” was confronted and restrained by this group due to his alleged practice of preventing illegal or unauthorized entry into the mine. According to the complainant, Anil Jaiswal (cousin of the deceased), the accused persons challenged the deceased by saying, “Who are you to stop us from going inside the mine?” and thereafter launched a premeditated armed attack on him. Specific individuals, namely Roshan Singh Thakur, Gaurav Singh Thakur, Vasu Thakur, Saurabh Shrivas, and Sanskar Thakur, are alleged to have stabbed the deceased in the chest, while the remaining members of the mob held him and incited the assault by shouting, “Kill him; only then can we work in the mine and earn money.” The complainant further claims to be an eye-witness and states that he sustained a wrist injury while attempting to intervene, and the FIR also names several other alleged eye-witnesses. Consequently, on 29.03.2025, an FIR bearing No. 114/2025 was registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), and 61(2)(a) of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant 3 is an innocent person who has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime. He further submits that the FIR, lodged on 29.03.2025 by the cousin of the deceased, contains no direct attribution of any specific overt act to the applicant and merely names him along with several others without proper investigation into his whereabouts. On the contrary, the applicant has a verifiable alibi, he was in Bilaspur with his friend Anwar Khan from 1 PM onwards on the date of the incident, accompanying his brother Shikhar for a competitive exam, and his presence there is corroborated by the admit card, Google timeline history, CCTV footage, restaurant bills, and the testimony of independent witnesses. A pen drive containing such material has been annexed as Annexure A/3. It is submitted that the applicant has never communicated with any co-accused before, during, or after the incident, and his limited commercial association with one of the accused cannot be construed as criminal conspiracy. Despite over two months since the FIR, the investigating agency has failed to collect location data, CDRs, or other technical evidence to verify the alibi, demonstrating lack of diligence. Reliance is placed on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, and Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, to submit that personal liberty is a fundamental right and arrest must remain an exception, in the present case. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel 4 for the objector vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations against the