Vishal Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:12188

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 2363 of 2026

¶6

Vishal Tamrakar S/o Rajendra Tamrakar Aged About 30 Years Caste Thathera, R/o Ward No. 4, Pratappur, Police Station And Tahsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. - Pratappur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Government Advocate alongwith Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer for the State

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

13/03/2026

¶15

This is the second bail application of the applicant.

¶16

The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed by this Court in MCrC No. 4633/2024.

¶17

2

¶18

The applicant was arrested on 25.02.2024 in connection with the crime No. 48/2024 registered at police station – Pratappur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) and charge-sheet was filed under Sections 363, 364A, 302, 201, 120B of the IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), however, the charges have been framed by the learned trial Court only under Sections 120B, 363/34, 364A/34, 302/34 and 201 of the IPC.

¶19

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29.01.2024, at about 4 pm, deceased Rishu Kashyap, who is a boy aged about 10 years was kidnapped by the accused persons, for which a missing report has been lodged by his father on 30.01.2024. Police registered case for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC and started investigation. During investigation, statement of father of the deceased was recorded wherein he stated that he received a ransom call from Mobile No.8889462037; also statement of one Daksh Jaiswal, who is friend of deceased was recorded, who stated in his evidence that the deceased was taken by the co-accused Shubham Soni. When he was interrogated, he disclosed that he along with the present applicant, conspired together, kidnapped the minor boy, and made ransom call for Rs.6 lakhs from father of the deceased, and when the deceased tried to flee from their custody, present applicant assaulted the deceased by Danda, and thereafter, they burnt his dead body. On the basis of his memorandum, when the Police reached the place where the accused persons burnt the dead body of deceased, and they found the corpse bones, which were identified by father of the deceased by burnt pieces of clothes of the deceased boy. During investigation, statement of one

¶20

3

¶21

Shiv Kumar was also recorded, by whose mobile, the co-accused Shubham Soni made ransom call to father of the deceased, and fled away along with mobile. Accused Shubham Soni has been identified by Shiv Kumar that he is the person, who took his mobile phone. From the spot, one button, Danda, Motorcycle, and one black half shirt, have been seized. In FSL report, Morphology of the button has been matched with the other button of shirt seized from the applicant. A mobile phone has also been seized from the spot. Police registered the offence, applicant has been arrested on 25.02.2024, and charge-sheet has been filed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no direct evidence and no eye witnesses available in the case and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence that is the memorandum statement of the present applicant and co-accused persons. The memorandum statement is very weak type of evidence and the dead body of the deceased was found after 25 days after the alleged date of kidnapping. The applicant has been connected only through Morphological report of the button found on the spot which was elegantly matched with the button of the shirt seized from the present applicant. He would further submit that out of total 45 cited witnesses only 12 witnesses have been examined till date. The applicant is in jail since 25.02.2024, final adjudication will take it from time, therefore, the applicant has filed the second bail application.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and has submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits. There are sufficient and overwhelming

¶24

4

¶25

evidences available in the charge-sheet against the present applicant, the trial court has already been started and is in considerable progress, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application as well as case diary.

¶27

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and the material available in the charge-sheet against the present applicant, further considering that the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits, trial of the case is in progress and 12 witnesses have already been examined.

¶28

I am not inclined to admit this second bail application of the applicant at this stage, however, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 25.02.2024, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case.

¶29

Accordingly, the second bail application is dismissed.

¶30

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

¶31

Sumit

Vishal Tamrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Tamrakar 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

M/S Ramsaran Singh Projects LLP Vs Wapcos Limited

M/S Ramsaran Singh Projects LLP Vs Wapcos Limited

Avinash Kumar Khandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Toman Das Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Abhiyantri Enterprises Private Ltd. Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjeev Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh