Jalil Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Its Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), (Added As Per Honble Court Order Dated 23.04.2025)

¶11

... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. UKS Chandel, Dy. Advocate General For Non-applicant No.2 : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate

¶12

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

17.06.2025

¶15

This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth ‘the BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to applicant, who is in custody in connection with Crime No.87/2023 registered at Police Station Saja, District Bemetara (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 307, 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

First bail application bearing M.Cr.C. No.4376/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.7.2024.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 8.4.2023, four school going boys of Sahu community were intercepted and assaulted by the boys of other community. A meeting was organized to intervene and for that purpose the boys of other community residing in the village were also called but they did turn up in the meeting. When Bhumeshwar Sahu along with his friends Bhagirathi Sahu and Rajaram Sahu were going to other vicinity of the village to call members of other community, the stones were pelted at them from the houses as a result Bhuneshwar Sahu sustained injuries, fell down and thereafter accused persons including present applicant dragged Bhuneshwar Sahu and assaulted him by means of sharp edged weapon also as a result he died. Incident was reported in concerned police station based upon which instant crime was registered and during course of investigation, applicant was arrested.

¶19

Learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant was arrested on 8.4.2023 and since then he is in jail i.e. for last more than two years. After filing of challan by the police, the investigation of crime was handed over to the CBI vide Notification dated 26.4.2024 and the CBI has now filed supplementary charge sheet after completion of investigation impleading six more co-accused persons. However, for the

¶20

3 / 4

¶21

reasons best known to the prosecution, newly arrayed accused persons have yet not been arrested. Against one of newly arrayed accused namely Jameer Khan, there is allegation of assault by means of knife. As it is the case of assault upon deceased and others by a group of persons including applicant and some of the accused persons have not been arrested till date, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposing the bail application, would submit that nature of offence committed by applicant is serious one. In the statement of witnesses namely Bhekhlal Thakur, Premlal Sahu, Rajaram Sahu, Bhagirathi Sahu, Gocharan Sahu recording in the course of investigation, there is direct allegation against applicant regarding his involvement in commission of crime in question along with others. Delay in start of trial is on the ground that after handing over of investigation to the CBI, supplementary charge sheet was filed and now the case has been transferred to the Court of CBI vide order of this Court dated 12.3.2025 and is fixed on 20.6.2025. Even if other co-accused persons have not been arrested, applicant cannot pray for negative parity. He also contended that merely period of detention will not be sufficient to seek bail in such a serious nature of offence of assaulting and committing murder of one of the injured. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble

¶23

4 / 4

¶24

Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav vs

¶25

CBI, reported in 2007 AIR SCR 753 .

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶27

This is an application seeking bail by the applicant under the provision of Section 483 of the BNSS, therefore, this Court is confined only to consider whether applicant is entitled for bail or not.

¶28

From the documents available in charge sheet, part of which is filed along with reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it is appearing that in the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Agency, there is prima facie allegation of involvement of applicant in commission of crime in question. Charges are under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 120B of IPC along with the offence under Sections 336, 307 & 302 of IPC.

¶29

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶30

Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶31

Considering the entirety of the facts of case and the material collected by the Investigating Agency, forming part of the charge sheet, I do not find present to be a fit case where applicant should be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, this second bail application is rejected.

¶32

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶33

roshan/-

Jalil Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalil Khan 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

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rameshwari Khairwar

Ramnarayan Sahu Vs Anil Ram Rawani

S.Ram Dhurv Vs Hembai

Smt. Gulawati Sahu Vs Sunil Dwivedi

Bhajan Singh Painkara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Mogra Bai Vs Chaturbhushan Kesharvani