Yashoda Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 257/2025 registered at Police Station – Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 332(B), 324(6), 191(1), 191(3), 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1), 325, 103(2) of BNS.

¶16

HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.05.05 13:16:32 +0530

¶17

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.08.2025, complainant Kantibai Mahant gave information to the concerned police station to the effect that she resides in the village of Bagrail, Police Station- Dabhra. The government borewell pump in her locality had broken down; consequently, on

¶18

2

¶19

the morning of 10.08.2025, at 10:00 AM, her husband, Sarvedas, procured and installed a new starter, thereby restoring the pump to working order. When Chand Butai Mahant went to fetch water, her husband remarked that he had successfully repaired the bore-well. Subsequently, their son, Vimal Mahant, called his father to come along and brought him home; after having their lunch, they both went to sleep. Due to an old grudge, in the evening of 10.08.2025, at about 6:00 PM, several villagers—namely Piladas Mahant, Rohidas Mahant, Sufaldas Mahant, Chamrudas Mahant, Krishnadas Mahant, Mannudas Mahant, Kamaldas Mahant, Durjandas Mahant, and Sunildas Mahant—arrived carrying sticks, clubs, and iron rods. While hurling obscene abuses involving mothers and sisters and issuing death threats, they smashed the doors and windows of the house, barged inside, and physically assaulted her husband, Sarvedas Mahant, and her son, Vimaldas Mahant, using kicks, sticks, clubs, and rods. The complainant managed to take her son to the rear of the house, towards the Kolabari area, and hid him there. She then returned to save her husband, but the assailants assaulted her as well and shoved her aside. They then bound her husband Sarvedas's hands with a piece of cloth and dragged him into the lane near Sufaldas Mahant's house. Acting in concert and with the specific intent to kill him, they launched a lethal attack on Sarvedas Mahant at that location, beating him severely with kicks, sticks, clubs, and rods, before abandoning him near Sufaldas Mahant's residence. Acting upon this information, police personnel proceeded to the village of Bagrail; while they were bringing her husband, Sarvedas Mahant, to the Dabhra hospital for medical treatment, he passed away at about 9:00 PM that night. As a result of the assault, her husband sustained severe injuries to his head, face, chest, abdomen, and both arms and legs; the petitioner sustained injuries to her right hand, both upper arms, waist, and right shoulder; and her son, Vimaldas, sustained injuries to the area above his left eye, his head, and his left arm. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

¶21

3

¶22

innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case only because she is a family member of the coaccused persons. The present applicant has not been named in the FIR lodged by Kantibai Mahant, wife of the deceased. The applicant is a lady and is in jail since 22.08.2025; only 6 witnesses out of 37 listed witnesses have been examined till date, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. One co-accused, namely, Urmila Mahant, has been granted bail in MCRC No. 2253/2026 on 25.03.2026 by this Court, and the case of the present applicant is similar to the said co-accused; therefore, on the basis of parity, the applicant may also be granted bail.

¶23

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submits that the name of the present applicant has been named in the statement of Kanti Bai, wife of the deceased and Vimal Das, son of the deceased recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as also in Court statement of Kanti Bai, the name of the present applicant has been named. A wooden stick, which has been used in the alleged incident, has also been seized from the applicant, on the basis of memorandum statement. As such, there is sufficient evidence against the applicant; therefore, at this stage, she may not be enlarged on bail.

¶24

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

¶25

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that applicant has not been named in the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is recorded on 13.08.2025 after three days of FIR, the applicant is a lady, who is in custody since 22.08.2025, only 6 witnesses have been examined out of 37 witnesses, FSL report is awaited, one coaccused, namely, Urmila Mahant, has already been granted bail on the same set of facts, and the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, at this stage, without commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶26

4

¶27

7. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the trial of the case.

¶28

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

¶29

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶30

H.L. Sahu

Yashoda Mahant v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashoda Mahant 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganesh Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pintu Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Banti Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandraprakash @ Shatrughan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Raju Saxena Vs State of Chhattisgarh