Dismissed¶28

Kanshinath Sandaliya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Apr 2025MCRC/2417/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refusal; Section 483 BNSS 2023; MCRC 2417 of 2025; murder case under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC; Crime No.05/2024, P.S. Rajpur, Balrampur-Ramanujganj; death by dhurmus/wooden stick assault on 02.01.2024; applicant in custody since 03.01.2024; prosecution witnesses turned hostile per defence; gravity and seriousness of offence weighed against bail; direction for expeditious trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected: looking to the nature and seriousness of the case (offence under Section 302 IPC of beating the deceased to death in a public place) and after considering the facts, circumstances and other aspects, this Court held it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. ¶27

Kanshinath Sandaliya Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:17635

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 2417 of 2025

¶6

Kanshinath Sandaliya S/o Ramsai Sandaliya Aged About 33 Years R/o Gopalpur Bazarpara, P.S.- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.).

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., P.S.- Rajpur, District- BalrampurRamanujganj, (C.G.)

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. along with Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

17/04/2025

¶16

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.05/2024 registered at

¶17

¶18

Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the IPC.

¶19

Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 02/01/2024 at around 01:00 o'clock at afternoon, the applicant with the other coaccused, had assaulted the deceased (Ramavtar), the crime has been committed by causing the death of the deceased (Ramavtar) by assaulting him with dhurmus. Thereafter report lodged under Sections 302, 201, 34 of I.P.C, and after that the applicant/accused has been arrested on 03.01.2024 and since he is in jail.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is innocent of the crime and have been falsely implicated. He further contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated without there being any basis and it has not been proved by the prosecution about the presence of the Applicant at the time of commission of offence. He further contended that the applicant/accused has been falsely roped in this case even though there is no motive or intention gathered on the part of applicant for the commission of crime in the present case. There is no eye witness and direct evidence against the applicant which shows the involvement of applicant for the commission of offence and during the trial material evidence Gaurishankar, Nurul Haq, Mansoor Alam, Rajkumar, Vijay, Sitanandan and memorandum

¶21

¶22

witness has been examined, but they were not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. The applicant is in jail since 03.01.2024 and the trial will take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore the applicant may be released on bail.

¶23

Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶24

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

¶25

Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties and further considering that while rejecting the bail application of the applicant, the learned trial Court finds that on perusal of the original record shows that a crime is pending against the applicant/accused Kanshinath Sandilya and co-accused under Section 302 IPC to the effect that on 02-01-2024 at about 01:00 pm, they killed the deceased Ramavatar by beating him with a wooden stick in a public place, which shows the serious nature of the crime. In such a situation, after considering the facts, circumstances and gravity of the crime, it does not seem appropriate to grant bail to the applicant/accused Kanshinath Sandilya. In view of its seriousness and after considering other circumstances, it does not seem appropriate to grant bail to this applicant/accused. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the

¶26

¶27

case, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 involved in Crime No.05/2024 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District BalrampurRamanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the IPC, is rejected .

¶29

However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶32

Vasant

Kanshinath Sandaliya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanshinath Sandaliya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Naresh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Keshav Nishad @ Dinesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Vental Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Coal India Ltd. Vs Rahul Jaiswal

Shobhna George Vs Rohit Singh