Dismissed¶17

Vijay Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Mar 2026MCRC/1860/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC (Bilaspur), MCRC No. 1860 of 2026, order dated 09.03.2026 by Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal: regular bail of Vijay Sahu rejected under S. 483 BNSS 2023; accused in Crime No. 169/2025 PS Balod for murder (S. 103(1) BNS 2023) and S. 332(A) BNS 2023 — death of Smt. Rambati Bai on 13.04.2025 by head struck against floor; eyewitnesses Gunjan and Payal; blood-stained clothes seized; 14/19 witnesses examined; custody since 19.04.2025; trial to be expedited preferably within 4 months.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail refused; bail application rejected. Copy of the order directed to be sent to the trial Court, which was directed to expedite the trial preferably within 4 months from receipt of the order. ¶17

Vijay Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Vijay Sahu, accused in Crime No. 169/2025 of Police Station Balod for offences under Sections 103(1) and 332(A) of BNS, 2023, should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶12

Court's answer

After considering the submissions of counsel for both sides and the overall facts and circumstances, the Court was not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail and rejected the first bail application.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Looking to the custody period of the applicant (in jail since 19.04.2025) and considering the matter exceptional, the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial as early as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — First bail application of the applicant, arraigned in Crime No. 169/2025 of Police Station Balod, District Balod (CG) for offences under Sections 103(1) and 332(A) of BNS, 2023, rejected. Prosecution case: on 13.04.2025 the applicant allegedly caused the death of complainant's wife Smt. Rambati Bai by hitting her head against the floor inside their residential house. State opposed bail pointing to eyewitnesses Gunjan and Payal present at the time of incident, families of accused and deceased residing in the same house, and seizure of the applicant's blood-stained clothes. Applicant in custody since 19.04.2025; 14 of 19 witnesses already examined with trial in progress. Court found no ground for release but, treating the matter as exceptional in view of the custody period, directed the trial Court to expedite the trial preferably within 4 months from receipt of the order.

2026:CGHC:11268

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 1860 of 2026

¶6

Vijay Sahu S/o. Shri Shyam Lal Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o. Nipani, Police Station And District Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Balod District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. P. K. Patel, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate

¶9

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶10

Order on Board

¶11

09.03.2026

¶12

1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No. 169/2025 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod (CG) for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 332(A) of BNS, 2023.

¶13

2. As per the prosecution case, on 13.04.2025, the applicant has caused the death of complainant’s wife Smt. Rambati Bai by hitting her head against the floor inside their residential house.

¶14

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the crime in question and only on the basis of the memorandum statement, the applicant was arrested and the chappal and clothes were seized from him. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 19.04.2025 and till date out of a total 19 witnesses, 14 have been examined and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that adequate evidence is available as the witnesses Gunjan and Payal were present at the time of incident. The families of accused and deceased were residing in the same house. He submits that the clothes of applicant contains blood stains which were seized. The maximum witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and further trial is in progress.

¶17

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release him on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶18

6. However, looking to the custody period of the applicant as he is stated to be in jail since 19.04.2025 and considering the matter to be an exceptional one, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶19

7. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.

¶20

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶21

Rao

Vijay Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Sahu 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

Shadanand Patel Vs Kamlesh Kumar Patel

Pks Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Ram Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A Juvenile in Conflict With Law (M) Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh