Dismissed¶25

Duja Bai Tandon v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jan 2025MCRC/249/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (Rajani Dubey, J.), 13.01.2025, MCRC No. 249 of 2025: first bail application under S. 483 BNSS 2023 rejected for two accused in Crime No. 64/2022, PS Sahaspur-Lohara, Kabirdham (S. 307, 302, 109 r/w 34 IPC — alleged kerosene burning of Smt. Namrata Tandon, who died 21.02.2022); bail refused on totality of circumstances, gravity of offence, quality of evidence and specific allegations against applicants in her dying declaration; parity plea citing Supreme Court bail to co-accused husband Vinod Tandon in SLP (Crl.) No. 12284/2024 did not prevail.

What did the court decide?

In deciding the bail application, the Court weighed the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the quality of evidence, and further considered the dying declaration of the deceased. ¶24

Duja Bai Tandon Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused/applicants (Duja Bai Tandon and Khelan @ Khelawan Tandon) should be released on regular bail during trial under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 64/2022 (Sections 307, 302 and 109 read with 34 IPC), Police Station Sahaspur-Lohara, District Kabirdham.

¶15

Court's answer

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Because the dying declaration contained specific allegations levelled by the deceased against the applicants, the Court was not inclined to release them on bail at that stage.

¶24

Key takeaways

The first bail application filed by the accused/applicants under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was rejected.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

First bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 moved by two accused — Duja Bai Tandon (W/o Khemu Tandon) and Khelan @ Khelawan Tandon (S/o Bahra Tandon) — for regular bail during trial in Crime No. 64/2022, Police Station Sahaspur-Lohara, District Kabirdham, charged under Sections 307, 302 and 109 read with 34 IPC. Prosecution story: on 16.02.2022 kerosene oil allegedly poured upon deceased Smt. Namrata Tandon, who was shuttled between Khamhariya hospital, District Hospital Bemetara and Horizon Hospital Raipur; her dying declaration named the applicants, on whose basis zero FIR 00/2022 (S. 307, 34 IPC) was registered and sent to PS Sahaspur-Lohara, becoming Crime No. 64/2022; the deceased died on 21.02.2022 and Section 302 IPC was added; charge-sheet followed. Applicants in jail since 19.02.2022. Counsel for applicants urged innocence, parity with co-accused Vinod Tandon/Husband enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court vide order dated 14.12.2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 12284/2024, and prolonged incarceration. State counsel opposed, citing 70-72% burn injuries, the dying declaration against the applicants, and eyewitness Aman Patle. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, considering the totality of circumstances, gravity of offence, quality of evidence and the specific allegations in the dying declaration against the applicants, declined bail and rejected the application on 13.01.2025.

2025:CGHC:2000

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 249 of 2025

¶6

1 - Duja Bai Tandon, W/o Khemu Tandon Aged About 40 Years

¶7

2 - Khelan @ Khelawan Tandon S/o Bahra Tandon Aged About 62 Years R/o Magarwah, Police Station And Tehsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, Police Station- SahaspurLohara, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Applicants	: Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate
For State/Respondent	: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

¶12

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

13.01.2025

¶15

The accused/applicants have moved this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 64/2022 registered at Police Station- Sahaspur-Lohara, District

¶16

¶17

Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 302 and 109 read with 34 of IPC.

¶18

The prosecution story, in brief is that, on 16.02.2022, the applicants herein poured kerosene oil upon the deceased Smt. Namrata Tandon. Thereafter, she was taken to Khamhariya hospital from where she was referred to District Hospital Bemetara. Thereafter, she was taken to Horizon Hospital, Raipur. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded and on that basis, zero FIR 00/2022 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 307,34 of IPC and sent to Police Station Sahaspur-Lohara. Thereafter, Crime No. 64/2022 was registered. However, on 21.02.2022, the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries. Thereafter the offence under Section 302 of IPC was added. It has been alleged that in the dying declaration, the deceased named the present applicants. Based on the complaint, investigation and medical reports, the accused were arrested and a charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 302 and 109 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the co-accused Vinod Tandon/Husband has been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.12.2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 12284/2024. He next contends that applicants are in jail since 19.02.2022, charge-sheet has been filed and there is no likelihood of their case being decided in near future, therefore, the present applicants may be released on bail.

¶20

On the other hand, counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the deceased suffered 70-72% burn

¶21

¶22

injuries and succumbed to it and in her dying declaration, she clearly alleged the allegations against the applicants. He further states that there is also one eye-witness namely Aman Patle to the incident. Therefore, no case is made out to grant regular bail to them.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, quality of evidence and further considering the dying declaration of the deceased wherein the specific allegations have been levelled by the deceased against the applicants, at this stage, I am not inclined to release them on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, application filed under Section 483 of BNSS is rejected.

¶26

Sd/(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶27

Ruchi

¶28

RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV

Duja Bai Tandon v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duja Bai Tandon v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagbir Singh Jangda Vs Ashok Kumar Patel

Deepak Pamnani Vs Kamal Kaushik

Victim-X Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Alok Kumar Dubey Vs Manoj Sinha

Achchhe Ram Vs Santosh Kumar