Allowed

Dhanesh Chelak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Sept 2026MCRC/3683/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of two bail applications jointly. The court granted regular bail to the applicants involved in a murder case, noting they were added based on juvenile statements and not named in the initial FIR.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants Dhanraj Baghel, Dhanesh Chelak and Tikeshwar Bandhe on personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Dhanesh Chelak Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010152392026

2026:CGHC:39884

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.09.11 18:45:30 +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 3561 of 2026

¶8

*** -** Dhanraj Baghel S/o Santram Baghel Aged About 18 Years R/o VillageBijabhat, Police Station- Bhatapara Gramin, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶9

--- Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

*** -** State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Bhatapara Gramin, DistrictBalodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶12

--- Non-Applicant

¶13

And

¶14

MCRC No. 3683 of 2026

¶15

1 - Dhanesh Chelak Son Of Amar Singh Chelak Aged About 19 Years Resident Of Bijabhat, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, DistrictBalodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶16

2 - Tikeshwar Bandhe Son Of Chaman Bandhe Aged About 18 Years Resident Of Gadhdeeh, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, DistrictBalodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Description Of Applicant No. 2 Mentioned As Per Charge Sheet)

¶17

--- Applicants

¶18

Versus

¶19

*** -** State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶20

--- Non-Applicant

¶21

For Respective Applicants	:	Mr. Anil Gulati and Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocates
For Non-Applicant	:	Mr. RishirajPithwa, Panel Lawyer

¶22

¶23

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶24

11/09/2026

¶25

Since both the bail applications arise out of same crime number, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶26

These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 798/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103 (1), 109 and 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶27

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 29.12.2025, 07 members formed unlawful assembly and committed murder of Parmeshwar Yadu using knife, hands and fists. F.I.R. was lodged on 29.12.2025 by Tikaram Yadu against Bahaldas Banjare, Chhannu Lal Koshle and Umesh Sonwani and their associates.

¶28

During course of investigation, police seized knife from juvenileChannulal. The names of the present applicants were included based on memorandum statements of juvenile offenders. The applicants were arrested on 30.12.2025 and since then they are in judicial custody.

¶29

Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel leading the argument on behalf of the applicants would submit that the applicants were not named in the F.I.R.; their names were inserted based on memorandum statements; chargesheet has been filed; the applicants are in jail from 30.12.2025; the weapon used in murder of Parmeshwar Yadu was seized from the possession of juvenile offender. He would also argue that there is no direct evidence against the applicants, therefore, he would pray to

¶30

¶31

allow both the bail applications.

¶32

On the other hand, Mr. Rishiraj Pithwa, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose. He would contend that in F.I.R. all accused persons were not named, but subsequently statements of juvenile offenders were recorded under Section 180 of BNS and on the basis of memorandum statements, names of the present applicants were included as accused persons. He would submit that there is ample evidence against the present applicants, therefore, both the bail applications deserve to be rejected.

¶33

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

¶34

Having considered the fact that names of the present applicants were not mentioned in the F.I.R; their names were included as accused persons on the basis of memorandum of other co-accused; chargesheet has been filed, the applicants are in jail from 30.12.2025, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the applicants. According both the bail applications are allowed .

¶35

Let the Applicants – Dhanraj Baghel, Dhanesh Chelak and Tikeshwar Bandhe , involved in Crime No.798/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 103 (1), 109, 3 (5) of the BNS, be released on bail on each of them furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶36

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court

¶37

¶38

to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶39

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶40

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶41

(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶42

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court

¶43

concerned for necessary information and compliance.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶46

vatti

Dhanesh Chelak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanesh Chelak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases