Dismissed

Shiv Narayan Yadav @ Bade v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MCRC/4065/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by two applicants in a murder investigation. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants had attended the deceased's house on the date of the incident, their involvement was affirmed by co-accused statements, and they had not been identified by the mother in open court. The court held that credibility of witnesses could not be examined at the bail stage.

What did the court decide?

The bail application filed by the applicants was dismissed.

Shiv Narayan Yadav @ Bade Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

SATISH TUMANE

NAFR

Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.09.18 16:01:19 +0530

¶5

CGHC010171522026

¶6

2026:CGHC:40245

¶7

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

MCRC No. 4065 of 2026

¶9

1 - Shiv Narayan Yadav @ Bade S/o. Late Santram Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o. Bhawani Nagar, Near Bangali Shop, P.S. Khamhardih, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Shiva Yadav @ Chhote S/o. Late Santram Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o. Bhawani Nagar, Near Bangali Shop, P.S. Khamhardih, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

... Applicants

¶12

versus

¶13

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

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

For Applicants : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate.

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

15/09/2026

¶19

Heard.

¶20

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.164/2025, registered at Police Station Khamhardih, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 190

¶21

¶22

and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶23

As per the case of the prosecution, Dehati Nalishi was registered at the Police Station Khamhardih, District Raipur by Lalit Rao on 19/07/2025, wherein it was alleged that his younger son-Sunil Rao was taken away by Rahul Yadav and Om Prakash Yadav on account of some dispute at around 9.30 PM on 19/07/2025. It is also alleged that the accused persons in association with other accused persons have committed the murder of his son by using iron rod and axe. On such a complaint, the police has registered an FIR against Rahul Yadav and Om Prakash Yadav. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, it was found that on 19/07/2025, Rahul Yadav, Om Prakash Yadav along with other accused persons, namely Tarun Yadav and Arun Yadav had gone to the house of the deceased-Sunil Rao and they had enquired regarding whereabouts of the deceased-Sunil Rao and on the very next day, his dead body was found. On the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons, the present applicants have been involved in this case.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants would argue that there is no allegation against the present applicants and the Police has not seized any article from their possession. It is also argued that the mother and father of the deceased have already been examined and they have not named the present applicants. He would submit that on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons, the present applicants have been implicated in this case. He would contend that in this case, the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicants are in jail

¶25

¶26

since 06/08/2025, therefore, he prays that the applicants be released on regular bail.

¶27

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the applicants. He would contend that the mother of the deceased recognized Rahul Yadav and Om Prakash Yadav by name, whereas she recognize other accused persons as they reside in the same locality. He would further contend that on 19/07/2025, the present applicants along with other accused persons proceeded to the house of the deceased-Sunil Rao and on the very next day, his dead body was found. It is also contended that Rahul Yadav and Om Prakash Yadav in their memorandum statements have stated that the other accused persons have committed the offence along with the present applicants using knife and axe. It is also submitted that the deceased had sustained total 28 injuries, therefore, this bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the documents available on record.

¶29

Having considered the fact that on 19/07/2025, the present applicants along with other accused persons had gone to the house of the deceased-Sunil Rao and on the very next day, his dead body was recovered by the Police. In the memorandum statement, Rahul Yadav and Om Prakash Yadav affirmed involvement of the present applicants and the mother of the deceased has recognized the present applicants in the Court itself and further that all witnesses have not been examined, therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants.

¶30

¶31

It is well settled principles of law that credibility of evidence of the witnesses cannot be examined while entertaining the bail application. The mini trial is not permissible at this stage.

¶32

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants fail and is hereby

¶33

dismissed.

¶34

SD/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶35

Tumane

Shiv Narayan Yadav @ Bade v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Narayan Yadav @ Bade 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