Jeevanlal Ray Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 1843 of 2026

¶5

1 - Dikeshwar Kumar Ray Alias Dabbu S/o Chandrashekhar Ray, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sendari, Police Station Darhi, District- Bemetara (C.G.)

¶6

--- Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.)

¶9

--- Respondent

¶10

MCRC No. 1896 of 2026

¶11

1 - Jeevanlal Ray S/o Late Laxmicharan Ray Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Sendari, Police Station Darhi, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

--- Applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bemetara, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

--- Respondent

¶16

For Applicant	: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate with
	Mr. Arpan Verma, Adv. in both the cases.
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. G.A.
For Complainant	: Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Adv. and
	Ms. Shruti Shrivastava, Adv.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

Digitally signed by HEERALAL HEERALAL SAHUDate: SAHU 2026.03.12 16:56:46 +0530

¶20

12/ 03/ 2026

¶21

2

¶22

Since both the matters arising out of the same crime number, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

¶23

The accused/applicants have moved these first bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 465/2025 registered at Police Station - Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the BNS.

¶24

As per the prosecution’s case, it is alleged against the applicants that on 31.07.2025, the applicants hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased Satish Rai and, in furtherance of their common intention, they assaulted the deceased by means of a sharp-edged weapon, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicants.

¶25

Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicants have been roped in the present crime only because of an existing civil dispute relating to ancestral property. No specific role or overt act has been attributed to the applicants, and only on the basis of the memorandum statement, the present applicants have been implicated. The alleged seizure of the axe was made from applicant Dikeshwar on the basis of memorandum, which is claimed to be the weapon of offence, has been seized from an open and easily accessible place, but not from the accused person. He also submits that the entire prosecution case rests purely on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence whatsoever against the present applicant. The applicants are in jail since 01.08.2025. Applicant Jeevanlal Ray is a 72-year-old senior citizen, suffering from various age-

¶26

3

¶27

related ailments and health problems, and his continued incarceration is causing severe physical and mental hardship. There is no likelihood of their case being decided in the near future; therefore, the present applicants may be released on bail.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and complainant oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant Jeevanlal is the grandfather of the applicant Dikeshwar Kumar; they hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased. There are two eye-witnesses, namely Pramod Verma and Tameshwar Koshle, in the matter and also two witnesses, namely Narayan Banjare and Smt. Vishwasha Bai, who has seen the applicants going with weapons. They also submit that there is a seizure of axe (Fharsa) and blood-stained clothes (of both the applicants) from the applicant Dikeshwar; trial has not commenced yet; therefore, at this stage, they may not be enlarged on bail.

¶29

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

¶30

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the material available on record, the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicants, the gravity of the offence and also considering the fact that the trial has not commenced yet, at this stage, without commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the bail applications filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, are rejected .

¶31

The office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance, if any, forthwith.

¶32

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶33

H.L. Sahu

Jeevanlal Ray v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevanlal Ray 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

Mukhiram Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nikil Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sagar Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Bhimlesh Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh