Khageshwar Yadav @ Ajay Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:6850

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 613 of 2025

¶5

Khageshwar Yadav @ Ajay Yadav S/o Chandro Ram Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Lotapani, P.S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur C.G. Present Address- Manjhapara Bade Atarmuda Behind Om Tent, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶6

... Applicant.

¶7

versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh C.G.

¶9

... Respondent.

¶10

For applicant.	: Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Advocate General

¶11

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶12

Order Sheet

¶13

06/02/2025

¶14

The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested on 20-9-2022 in connection with Crime No. 499 of 2022 registered at

¶15

2

¶16

Police Station – Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh (CG) for alleged commission of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

¶17

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant and deceased were husband and wife. On 16-9-2022 complainant Dilweshwari Yadav who is sister of deceased Kanti Yadav, lodged a missing report in Police Station Chakradar Nagar alleging therein that her sister Kanti Yadav was missing from the house from 1-92022 on the basis of merg intimation No. 76 of 2022 was registered. On the basis of merg intimation Police have investigated the matter and on search it was found that dead body was exhumed in the kitchen garden. Thereafter, Executive Magistrate initiated proceeding for removal of dead body and after removal of dead body it was found to be the dead body of Kanti Yadav. There was a doubt over the conduct of the husband of the deceased. Therefore, on the basis of report and Dehati Nalsi, offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC was registered. Merg intimation was lodged by the sister of deceased Kanti Bai. It is also case of the prosecution that when she opened the door of the deceased, it was found that three fingers and skull of woman were available and the same was informed to Police Station and accordingly the Police have registered the aforesaid offence against the accused.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that so far seven witnesses have been examined, particularly PW 1 Dhilieshwari Yadav is sister of the deceased and her merg intimation has not supported the case of prosecution and she has become turned hostile. Thus, he would submit that prima facie there is no involvement of the applicant, as

¶19

3

¶20

such no case is made out against the applicant. He would further submit that seven witnesses have been examined out 16 witnesses and nine witnesses have to be examined, the applicant is in jail since 20-9-2022 whereby he is in jail for more than two years and trial is likely to take sometime, therefore, the applicant may be granted bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the bail application would submit that from the evidence and material available and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., prima facie, involvement of the applicant is there. He would further submit that looking to the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the applicant has committed murder of his own wife, case is made out against the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶22

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

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of the witnesses, also the fact that out of sixteen witnesses only seven witnesses have been examined and rest of nine witnesses are yet to be examined, considering the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the applicant committed murder of his own wife for which no explanation has been offered, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the applicant should be enlarged on bail. .

¶24

Accordingly, the application is rejected. .

¶25

However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude expeditiously, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this court, if there is no legal impediment.

¶26

4

¶27

Prosecution is also directed to ensure that all the witnesses are present before the trial Court on the date given by the trial Court and if any delay tactics is adopted by the prosecution witnesses in not examining, then the concerned Superintendent of Police shall take necessary steps in this regard.

¶28