Dismissed¶23

Ku. Rani Alias Thageshwari Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Apr 2026MCRC/3265/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; MCRC No. 3265 of 2026; decided 16/04/2026 by Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal; second bail application under Section 483 BNSS 2023; offences under BNS Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 103(1), 191(3); Crime No. 05/2025, Police Station Bemetara; fatal assault of 03.01.2025; first bail dismissed 27.01.2026 in MCRC No. 619/2026; change of circumstance of witness examination rejected; trial-expedition period of 5 months unexpired; bail rejected; applicant in custody since 04.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

The court declined to release the applicant on bail because the five-month period directed for expediting the trial while deciding the first bail application had not yet expired, expressly refraining from commenting on the merits of the case. ¶22

Ku. Rani Alias Thageshwari Verma Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM SINGH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.04.17 11:26:12 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 3265 of 2026

¶6

Ku. Rani Alias Thageshwari Verma D/o Late Ramkumar Verma Aged About 18 Years R/o Mohaba Bazar, Near Tatiband Raipur Railway Line, Police Station- Amanaka, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer,police StationBemetara, District- Bemetara

¶10

... Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Sajal Ku. Gupta, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

16/04/2026

¶14

The applicant has preferred this 2^nd 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. 05/2025, registered at Police Station – Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 103(1), 191(3) of BNS.

¶15

First bail of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.01.2026 passed in MCRC no. 619/2026.

¶16

¶17

In this case there are total 10 accused persons. As per prosecution story, on 03.01.2025 at about 10:00 AM, while the complainant, his father, his sister Smt. Pushpa Sahu, and grandmother Smt. Durpati Bai were standing in front of their house, Topsingh Verma, along with Hira Lal @ Hiru Verma, Kalyan Verma, Somnath Verma, Teeju Verma, Bharat Verma, Ramayan Verma, Rani Verma, Smt. Jamuna Verma, and Smt. Dulaurin Verma, came to their house armed with sticks. Accused Topsingh questioned the complainant as to why he had beaten Hiru the previous day. The complainant denied the allegation. Thereafter, all the accused persons abused the complainant's family in filthy language, threatened to kill them, and jointly assaulted the complainant, his father, and his sister with sticks and fists. When his father attempted to enter the house to save himself, Topsingh, Hiru, Kalyan, and Teeju dragged him outside, and Topsingh inflicted three to four knife blows on the left rib of the deceased. Meanwhile, accused Rani Verma, Hiru, Kalyan, Somnath, Teeju, Bharat, Ramayan, Smt. Jamuna, and Smt. Dulaurin continued beating the complainant and his sister, causing multiple injuries on their heads, neck, hands, back, waist, and thighs. Due to the grievous injuries, the complainant's father became unconscious. He was taken to District Hospital, Bemetara, where the doctor, after examination, declared him brought dead. On the basis of the complaint, a crime was registered and investigation commenced. During the investigation, the present applicant and other accused were apprehended.

¶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 the change of circumstance in the second bail application is that at the time of deciding the first application, only 5 out of 27 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and now 11 material witnesses have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 04.01.2025 and the trial is likely to take time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, and further considering that while deciding the first bail application of the applicant, a direction was given to the Trial Court to expedite the trial within 5 months and the said period of 5 months has not expired till date, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶24

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶25

Shubham

Ku. Rani Alias Thageshwari Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Rani Alias Thageshwari Verma 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

Ishwar Saraf Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sourabh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shadika Begum Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Shankar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

P. Gurushekhran Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rcs Lorry Services Vs State of Chhattisgarh