Joseph Kashyap @ Lalu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:10816

¶3

Digitally signed by SOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date: 2026.03.02 17:20:18 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1720 of 2026

¶5

NAFR

¶6

1 - Joseph Kashyap @ Lalu S/o Yunesh Kashyap, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Khadakghat Para, Praveerchand Ward No. 1, Police Station- Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.).

¶7

2 - Neelu Baghel S/o Late Mohan Baghel, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Dongaghat Para, Shivmandir Ward No. 3, Police Station- Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.).

¶8

3 - Pappu Baghel S/o Ghansiram Baghel, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Dongaghat Para, Shivmandir Ward No. 3, Police Station- Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.).

¶9

... Applicants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Bodhghat, District- Bastar (C.G.).

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Applicants : Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy.A.G.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

02/ 03/ 2026

¶17

The accused/applicant has moved this First bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police Station – Bodhghat, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103, 332(A), 309(4), 55, 61(2), 311, 238 of BNS, 2023.

¶18

2

¶19

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.01.2025, the complainant, Dr. Vasudev Rai, resident of Anukuldev Ward Awas Plot Karkapal, gave an intimation to the Police Station, Bodhghat, to the effect that his wife, namely Archana Ghosh, was lying dead in her bedroom and there were signs of the foot of an unknown person who had entered the house via the balcony. On the basis of the above report, initially Merg No. 01/2025 was registered, and upon merg enquiry, Crime No. 03/2025 was registered against an unknown person. During the course of investigation, the applicants and co-accused Rohit Kashyap were arrested on 06.01.2025.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and there is no eyewitness in the present case. It is also submitted that the complainant as well as the seizure witnesses have been examined and have not specifically stated that they have identified the present applicants. The applicants have no criminal antecedents and have been in jail since 06.01.2025. Given that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, the present applicants may be released on bail.

¶21

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, submitting that the applicants with other co-accused persons, with the intention of robbery, entered the house of the deceased and committed murder. On the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused person, certain

¶22

3

¶23

items were seized: one gold chain and cash of Rs. 17,500/- from applicant No. 1; one mobile, silver ornaments, and cash of Rs. 11,500/- from applicant No. 2; and one mobile and cash of Rs. 6,000/- from applicant No. 3. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, they should not be enlarged on bail.

¶24

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

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the material collected and available on record against the applicants, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicants.

¶26

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected .

¶27

However, considering the fact that the applicants are in jail since 06.01.2025 i.e., about 01 year 01 months and 27 days. It is an exceptional case, therefore, concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible .

¶28

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶31

Sourabh P.

Joseph Kashyap @ Lalu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Kashyap @ Lalu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Yadav @ Lucky Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Kumar Chandra Vs Smt. Anita Chandra

Anil Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gulshan Taigor Vs State of Chhattisgarh