Dismissed¶9

Rahul Namdev v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 May 2025MCRC/1841/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; MCRC No. 1841 of 2025; Justice Parth Prateem Sahu; order dated 07.05.2025; NAFR; Section 483 BNSS regular bail application rejected; Sections 296 and 308(4) BNS 2023; Crime No.942/2024 P.S. Sirgitti Bilaspur; arrested 29.12.2024; threatening letter sent from jail through Warder Sameer Rautiya; departmental enquiry, charge sheet, Enquiry and Presenting Officers appointed 18.4.2025; affidavit of Director General Prison and Correctional Services pursuant to order dated 3.4.2025; criminal antecedents under IPC Ss. 294, 323, 506, 147, 34, 302; alleged demand of Rs.1 lakh from complainant; direction to trial Court to expedite trial; applicant Rahul Namdev; advocates Raj Kumar Gupta, K.P. Gupta, A.K. Yadav.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; however, the trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial.

Rahul Namdev Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail rejected; however, the trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, in custody since 29.12.2024 in Crime No.942/2024 (Sections 296 and 308(4), BNS 2023), should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Regular bail declined at this stage because the complainant alleged the applicant threatened him from jail and, pursuant to this Court's order dated 3.4.2025, a departmental enquiry proceeding has been initiated against the Warder of Central Jail Bilaspur for delivering the applicant's letter to the complainant.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The first regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS is rejected; the applicant is not enlarged on bail at this stage.

¶9

Key takeaways

Considering the date of arrest of the applicant, the nature of allegations and counsel's submission, the trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MCRC No. 1841 of 2025 | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur | Parth Prateem Sahu, J. | 07.05.2025 (NAFR) — First regular bail application under S. 483 BNSS by Rahul Namdev (aged about 21, in custody since 29.12.2024) in Crime No.942/2024, P.S. Sirgitti, Bilaspur, for offences under Ss. 296 and 308(4), BNS 2023; prosecution case that after release on bail in another case the applicant abused, threatened and demanded Rs.1 lakh from the complainant. Bail REJECTED at this stage: the complainant alleged the applicant sent a threatening letter from jail through a jail employee; pursuant to this Court's order dated 3.4.2025, the Director General, Prison and Correctional Services filed an affidavit recording departmental enquiry (charge sheet Annexure A-3; Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer appointed 18.4.2025, Annexure A-4) against Warder Sameer Rautiya of Central Jail Bilaspur for delivering the applicant's letter to the complainant. Criminal antecedents noted: Crime No.0142/2021 (Ss. 294, 506, 323, 34 IPC) and Crime No.0193/2022 (Ss. 294, 323, 506 & 147 IPC); objector claimed six antecedents including S. 302 IPC. Trial Court directed to expedite the trial.

2025:CGHC:20986

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 1841 of 2025

¶6

Rahul Namdev S/o Pankaj Namdev Aged About 21 Years R/o Chakrbhatha Camp Ward No. 11 P.S. Chakarbhatha District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

--- Applicant (In jail)

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho P.S. Sirgitti District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

--- Non-applicant

¶11

For Applicant	: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For Non-applicant	: Mr. K.P. Gupta, Govt. Advocate
For Objector	: Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate

¶12

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

07.05.2025

¶15

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 3.4.2025, the affidavit of the Director General, Prison and Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur has been filed.

¶16

Learned State Counsel would submit that after coming to know about the misconduct committed by Shri Sameer Rautiya, Warder, Central Jail Bilaspur, a departmental action against him has been taken and departmental enquiry is

¶17

¶18

initiated after issuance of charge sheet. Copy of charge sheet is filed as Annexure A-3 to affidavit. He also contended that the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer are also appointed vide order dated 18.4.2025 (Annexure A-4). He further contended that action against said Shri Sameer Rautiya has already been taken in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed upon completion of departmental enquiry.

¶19

This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth ‘the BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who is in custody in connection with Crime No.942/2024 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296 and 308 (4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶20

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged complaint in concerned police station to the effect that applicant is involved in a criminal case in which relatives of complainant were witnesses. After release on bail, applicant used to abuse, threat and also demanded Rs.1 Lakh from the complainant. Based on this complaint, offence under Section 296 and 308 (4) of BNS was registered against applicant and he was arrested on 29.12.2024.

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. Allegations levelled against applicant are absolutely false and baseless. There is no transfer of money and therefore offence under Section 308 (4) of BNS would not be attracted. Applicant is in jail since 29.12.2024; the trial of case will take considerable time, therefore, applicant be released on bail pending trial.

¶23

On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of present applicant and submits that complainant has made complaint making specific allegation that applicant is giving threat and demanding Rs.1 Lakh from him. There is prima facie material available against the applicant for alleged offences. Apart from details of criminal antecedents given by applicant in bail application, two more crimes were registered against him i.e. Crime No.0142/2021 for the offences under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and Crime No.0193/2022 for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506 & 147 of IPC.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/Objector would submit that the applicant has given threat to complainant by sending letter from jail through jail employee, a copy of which is filed along with objection. He submits that there are as many six criminal antecedents against the applicant including the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

¶25

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶27

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the allegation of complainant that applicant has given threat to him from jail; affidavit of the Director General, Prison and Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur submitted pursuant to order passed by this Court wherein it is mentioned that departmental enquiry proceeding has been initiated against the Warder of Central Jail Bilaspur for delivering letter of applicant upon complainant, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶28

At this stage, learned counsel for applicant pray for a direction to expedite the trial.

¶29

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶30

Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶31

Considering the date of arrest of applicant, nature of allegations and submission of learned counsel for the applicant, the trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial.

¶32

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶33

roshan/-

Rahul Namdev v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Namdev v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manrakhan Sahu Vs Saraswati Sahu

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Firoz Ansari

Mu. Dudo Bai Vs Baldev Ekka

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Paras Jain

Laxmi Narayan Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Viplav Majumdar Vs State of Chhattisgarh