Mukesh Bandhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Simga, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)., District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶10

	---Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s)	: Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate

¶11

MCRC No. 6479 of 2025

¶12

1 - Mukesh Bandhe S/o Tilak Ram Bandhe Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Vinoba Nagar Mungeli, Police Station And District Mungeli, C.G.

¶13

---Applicant(s)

¶14

Versus

¶15

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationSimga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.19 18:11:37 +0530

¶18

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate

¶19

2

¶20

MCRC No. 8772 of 2025

¶21

1 - Syed Asad S/o Late Syed Hamid Aged About 32 Years (Father Name And Age Is Not Mention In Bail Rejection Order) Aged About 44 Years) R/o Ward No. 16, Kabir Ward Mungeli, Police Station And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶22

---Applicant(s)

¶23

Versus

¶24

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Simga, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh

¶25

--- Respondent(s)

¶26

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶27

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate

¶28

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

¶29

17/11/2025

¶30

All these bail applications are arising out of same crime number and therefore, they are being heard and decided together.

¶31

These three accused persons namely, Ankur Soni, Mukesh Bandhe and Syed Asad are claiming regular bail in connection with Crime No. 184 of 2024, registered at Police Station Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 427, 294, 506, 323, 147, 149, 452, 458, 459 and 407 of the Indian Penal Code. All these bail applications of the applicants are their first bail applications. The applicant- Ankur Soni (MCRC No. 6433 of 2025) is in jail since 03.06.2024, Mukesh Bandhe (MCRC No. 6479 of 2025) is in jail since 03.06.2024 and Syed Asad (MCRC No. 8772 of 2025) is in jail since 30.06.2025.

¶32

3

¶33

The case of prosecution, in brief, is that, on 03.06.2024, the police of Police Station Simga received an information that, on 02.06.2024, there was an incident of marpeet and the injured- Nand Kumar Patre has died and two other persons have serious injured. On the report of the complainant- Bharti Patre, the FIR has been registered against Dilip Kurre, Mukesh Kumar Bandhe, Dinesh Bandhe, Laxmi Bandhe, Tilak Bandhe, Ankur Soni and other 8-10 persons. During the investigation, blood-stained clothes and danda have been seized from the accused persons and they have been arrested. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against 8 accused persons, including the present applicants.

¶34

MCRC No. 6433 of 2025

¶35

Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, the injured- Anita Patre and Goverdhan have been examined before the learned trial Court as PW-1 and PW-2 and they have disclosed that the complainant received injuries by falling from the stairs. These two witnesses have also named the co-accused person Jisan Khan and Saddam Khan as the assailants along with other accused persons and these two similarly situated accused persons have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.11.2025, passed in SLP (Crl) No. 13799 of 2025 and the case of the present applicant is similar to the case of Jisan Khan and Saddam Khan. It is also submitted that, the incident occurred in a heat of passion between two groups and there is no specific allegation against the present applicant. She would also submit that,

¶36

4

¶37

total 26 witnesses have been cited as prosecution witnesses, however, till date only 3 witnesses have been examined and from the month of April 2025, no witness has been examined. The final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶38

MCRC No. 6479 of 2025

¶39

Mr. Rajeev Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, the similarly situated co-accused persons have been released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the case of the present applicant is also similar to Jisan Khan and Saddam Khan, who have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would also submit that there is no specific allegation against the present applicant. He would also submit that the applicant is suffering from Sickle Cell Anemia and during his incarceration period, he is facing difficulties due to his ailment and proper medical treatment is not being provided by the jail authorities. The applicant is in jail since 03.06.2024 and there is no considerable progress in the trial of the case, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶40

MCRC No. 8772 of 2025

¶41

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that, the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name comes in the memorandum statement of Jisan Khan and Saddam Khan, that too they disclosed the name of “Arshad”, whereas the present applicant is “Asad”. In the test identification parade conducted by the police, Goverdhan has identified the

¶42

5

¶43

applicant, which was conducted on 08.07.2025. The memorandum statement of the applicant was recorded on 30.06.2025 and Goverdhan was the witness of the memorandum statement, and thus, he had seen the applicant Asad at the time of recording of memorandum and therefore, the TIP of the applicant looses its efficacy. There is no seizure from the present applicant of any article, therefore, he may also be enlarged on bail.

¶44

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has objected all these bail applications and submitted that, the applicants- Ankur Soni and Mukesh Bandhe have been named in the FIR that, they along with other accused persons came to the house of the complainant party and started assaulting the deceased and his family members. They thrown the injured- Goverdhan Patre from the terrace. Specific allegations have been leveled against these two accused persons in the FIR itself that they assaulted the deceased and injured persons by wooden club. With respect to the involvement of 8-10 other accused persons, the names of other accused persons have been disclosed by the arrested accused persons, in which the name of the applicant- Asad has also been disclosed. Although, it has been written as “Arshad”, that may be by its pronunciation, as “Asad” and “Arshad” are almost the similar pronunciation. He would also submit that the applicant- Asad was absconding for a consideration period and he could be arrested only on 30.06.2025 and after his arrest, he was put to test identification parade, which was conducted by the Executive Magistrate and he was duly identified by the witnesses. It is also submitted that the case of Jisan

¶45

6

¶46

Khan and Saddam Khan are different than the case of the present applicants, as Jisan Khan and Saddam Khan were not named in the FIR and no TIP have been conducted with respect to them, and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to them, considering that they have been identified by the witnesses during court proceeding by arrest warrant and photographs, however, the present applicants- Ankur Soni and Mukesh Bandhe were named in the FIR and Syed Asad was put to test identification parade by the police and in the TIP, he was duly identified by the witnesses. He would also submit that, there are two criminal antecedents against the present applicant- Syed Asad bearing Crime No. 43 of 2016, registered at Police Station Mungeli for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506, 323 and 427 of IPC and Crime No. 476 of 2021, registered at Police Station Mungeli for the offence under Sections 307, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. The trial of the case has already been started, and therefore, considering all these aspects, the applicants are not entitled for bail.

¶47

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and gone through the documents annexed with the bail applications.

¶48

Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, the statements of the injured persons and witnesses, the manner in which, the alleged offence is committed by the accused persons, nature of injuries, the applicants- Ankur Soni and Mukesh Bandhe are named in the FIR and the applicant- Syed

¶49

7

¶50

Asad was initially absconding for a considerable period and after his arrest, he was duly identified by the witnesses in TIP conducted by the police, their active involvement in the alleged commission of offence, criminal antecedents against the applicant- Syed Asad, I am not inclined to release them on bail. So far as the bail granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to Jisan Khan and Saddam Khan is concerned, their case are different than the case of the present applicants, as the applicants- Ankur Soni and Mukesh Bandhe are named in the FIR and Syed Asad has been identified in TIP conducted by the police, whereas Jisan Khan and Saddam Khan were not named and no TIP was conducted with respect to them. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the present applicants by the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to the accused persons Jisan Khan and Saddam Khan.

¶51

The ailment of the applicant- Mukesh Bandhe cannot be considered to be sufficient ground to enlarge him on bail. It is expected from the Jail Authorities to provide proper medical treatment to the applicantMukesh Bandhe with respect to his ailment.

¶52

Accordingly, all these bail applications of the applicants- Ankur Soni, Mukesh Bandhe and Syed Asad are rejected .

¶53

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶54

ved

Mukesh Bandhe v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Bandhe 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

Jasraj Vs Aakash Jain

Hirmen Vs Parmanand and Ors.

Raniya Bai Vs Manohar

Shiv Prasad Tiwari (Died through Lrs ) Vs Suresh Kumar Vig

M/s Jaika Automobiles Private Limited Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Ankur Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh