Dismissed¶23

Anand Gupta @ Lala Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Mar 2026MCRC/2265/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; M.Cr.C No.2265 of 2026; decided 23.03.2026 by Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal; regular bail; Section 439 Cr.P.C.; Section 483 BNSS; Section 302/34 IPC; murder; common intention; Crime No.250/2024; P.S. Bhatapara City; Balodabazar-Bhatapara; judicial custody since 17.05.2024; gravity of accusations; eye-witness; surgical blade seizure; memorandum statement; speedy trial direction (3 months); bail rejected.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail refused; bail application rejected. Trial Court directed to expedite the trial and endeavour to conclude it within 3 months from receipt of copy of the order. ¶23

Anand Gupta @ Lala Gupta Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:13674

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

M.Cr.C No.2265 of 2026

¶6

Anand Gupta @ Lala Gupta S/o Santosh Gupta Aged About 37 Years, R/o Sant Kanwar Ram Ward, Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara City, Distt. Balodabazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Details Of The Applicant are Mentioned As Per The Charge Sheet) ... Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Bhatapara City, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant

¶9

For Applicant: Shri Tessy Abraham, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶11

23.03.2026

¶12

SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA

¶13

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.03.24 11:04:30 +0530

¶14

This is the 1^st bail application filed under Section 439/Cr.P.C/483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the

¶15

¶16

Applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.250/2024 registered at Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

¶17

As per the prosecution case, on 14.05.2024, the deceased Akhilesh Yadu went out at night with a local person and did not return. The next morning, his son identified him through a photograph shown by the police and upon reaching the spot behind Mata Devalaya Temple, found his body with a deep head injury and a cut wrist. Accordingly, offence under the aforementioned Section was registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this Application.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question for which, he is behind the bars since 17.05.2024. It is contended that out of 6 witnesses, 3 have been examined, the alleged disclosure statement of the Applicant is not admissible in evidence except to the limited extent permissible under law. He lastly submits that trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, therefore, the Applicant may be released on bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-Applicant/State opposed the bail application and submitted that eye-witness namely M Kumar Patle has supported the case of the prosecution and on the basis of the memorandum statement of

¶20

¶21

the present Applicant, a surgical blade used in the commission of offence has been seized, therefore, the Applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail.

¶22

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Applicant and upon perusal of the material available in the case diary, this Court is of the view that the accusations levelled against the Applicant are of a serious and grave nature. The Applicant is in judicial custody since 17.05.2024; however, mere length of detention at this stage, particularly in a case resting on material collected during investigation, is not sufficient to enlarge him on bail. Taking into account the nature of allegations and the evidence on record, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant bail to the Applicant.

¶23

Accordingly, the application is rejected . However, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and make all endeavour to conclude the same within a period of 3 months from the receipt of copy of this order.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶26

Priya

Anand Gupta @ Lala Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Gupta @ Lala Gupta 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

Sanju Kumar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanhaiya Mastake Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Moh. Salman Shah Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Swapnil Dubey Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dhananjay @ Dhannu Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tirat Yadav @ Tirath Vs State of Chhattisgarh