Dismissed¶26

Bhavesh Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 May 2026CRA/1134/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bhavesh Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh; CRA No. 1134 of 2026; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal; regular bail; Section 14-A(2) SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Crime No. 720/2025 P.S. Tikrapara Raipur; Sections 333, 109, 3(5) BNS; Sections 25, 27 Arms Act; Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act; Trial Court bail rejection dated 21.01.2026 in Case No. 41/2025; main accused; co-accused bail already rejected; victim no objection; custody since 14.09.2025; 7 of 24 witnesses examined; appeal dismissed on 11/05/2026; direction to trial Court to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

In considering the bail plea, the Court took into account the circumstances of the case, the fact that the appellant is the main accused, and that the bail of the co-accused has already been rejected by this Court. ¶25

Bhavesh Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, arrested in Crime No. 720/2025 of P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, whose bail application was rejected by the Trial Court on 21.01.2026, should be granted regular bail on appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶15

Court's answer

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Without commenting on the merits of the case, and further considering the statements of witnesses, the Court was of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to release the appellant on bail.

¶25

Key takeaways

The appeal is dismissed.ratio¶26
Looking to the detention period of the appellant, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and ensure it is concluded as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 1134 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.; order dated 11/05/2026): Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by Bhavesh Verma against the Trial Court's order dated 21.01.2026 in Case No. 41/2025 rejecting his regular bail in Crime No. 720/2025, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, for offences under Sections 333, 109, 3(5) of BNS, Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The victim appeared virtually and recorded 'no objection' to bail; the appellant was in custody since 14.09.2025 and only 7 of 24 prosecution witnesses had been examined. Held: considering that the appellant is the main accused, that the co-accused's bail had already been rejected by this Court, and the statements of witnesses, without commenting on merits, it would not be appropriate to release him on bail — appeal dismissed; trial Court directed to expedite the trial and conclude it as expeditiously as possible.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 1134 of 2026

¶5

Bhavesh Verma S/o Shriram Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Near Satyanarayan Temple, P.S. Tikrapara, District- Raipur, (C.G.)

¶6

... Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police StationTikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.)

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Deepeshwari Mahilwar, P.L.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

11/05/2026

¶14

The victim of the case has appeared virtually and recorded ‘no objection’ in granting bail to the appellant.

¶15

This appeal is filed under Section 14-A (2) of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with crime number

¶16

¶17

720/2025 registered at police station Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 333, 109, 3(5) of BNS, under Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

¶18

By order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Trial Court in case No.41/2025, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal.

¶19

In this case there are total 3 accused persons, out of which one is juvenile. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.09.2025, complainant Ayush Thakur lodged a report stating that on 13.09.2025 in the night at 22.30 O’ clock, the appellant along with co-accused and a juvenile offendor forcibly entered into his house, abused in filthy language and assaulted his brother Abhjeet Thakur. It is alleged that the co-accused Vivek Verma and the juvenile offendor caught hold of his brother Abhijeet Thakur whereas the appellant Bhavesh Verma assaulted his brother with a sharp pointed object, due to which, his brother suffered injuries on his neck and other parts of body and was admitted in hospital. On the basis of the said report, crime was registered.

¶20

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the victim has no objection in granting bail to the appellant. The appellant is in jail since 14.09.2025, out of 24 prosecution witnesses, only 7 have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant, the knife has

¶22

¶23

been seized from him and he was the main accused, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail.

¶24

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶25

Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant is the main accused, the bail of co-accused has already been rejected by this Court. Further considering the statements of witnesses, without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to release the appellant on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶27

However, looking to the detention period of the Appellant, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶30

-Shubham

Bhavesh Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavesh Verma 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

Dharam Prakash Toppo Vs Shivlal Tigga

Chinesh Khamhari @ Kunu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Banmali Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajim Sen Vs Chanak @ Chanakya Yadav

Kishan Lal Davna Vs Nirmal Dahariya

Sanjay Tiwari Vs Shri Krishna Murti