Dismissed¶21

Bhima Sarthi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Bail – Section 483 BNSS, 2023

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2026MCRC/2355/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MCRC No. 2355 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 08/04/2026 by Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 refused for accused (Bhima Sarthi) in murder case under Section 103(1) BNS, Crime No.692/2024, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, Raipur; victim Ramendra Nishad killed 24.10.2024 with knife; 14 grave postmortem injuries; knife seized; named FIR by sister of deceased; eyewitness Badal Nishad hostile; 13/24 witnesses examined; custody since 26.10.2024; trial to be completed preferably within 5 months.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the applicant; bail refused. Trial Court directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within 5 months, and Office directed to send a certified copy to the trial Court. ¶21

Bhima Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 2355 of 2026

¶5

1 - Bhima Sarthi S/o Rajendra Sarthi, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Dhighari, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

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

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

08/04/2026

¶14

The applicant has preferred this First bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.692/2024, registered at Police Station – Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS.

¶15

As per the prosecution’s case, it is alleged that on 24.10.2024, the applicant on a previous dispute, committed the murder of Ramendra Nishad by causing injuries near his left ear, on his head, on the ribs of his left abdomen and on his left back with a sharp-edged knife. As per the postmortem report, 14 injuries of a grave nature on various parts of the body of the deceased were found. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant.

¶16

Digitally signed by HEERA HEERA LAL LAL SAHUDate: SAHU 2026.04.08 16:15:52 +0530

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that there is a total of 24 listed witnesses in this case, out of which 13 witnesses, including the eye witness, Badal Nishad, have been examined. Eyewitness, Badal Nishad has turned hostile. The applicant is in jail since 26.10.2024, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient material against the present applicant. The named FIR was lodged by the sister of the deceased, and there is a seizure of the alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife, from the applicant; therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence, at this stage, the applicant may not be released on bail.

¶20

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

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the material available on record against the applicant and also looking to the gravity of the offence, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is rejected .

¶22

However, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 26.10.2024 and only 13 witnesses out of 24 witnesses have been examined till date, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 5 months from the receipt of the copy of this order.

¶23

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

¶24

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶25

H.L. Sahu

Bhima Sarthi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhima Sarthi 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

Rajesh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harpreet Singh Chahal @ Happy Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lal Singh Jadaun @ Mama Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jailal Pando Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manish Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chundi Ramesh Vs M/S Shiwangi Oil Private Limited