Prakashchand Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by ALLENA ALLENA ANNAJEE ANNAJEE RAO RAO Date: 2026.01.28 18:16:16 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:4453

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 423 of 2026

¶6

Prakashchand Kashyap S/o Aadam Ram Kashyap Aged About 49 Years R/o. Village - Dhurwagudi, Police Station - Amlipadar, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station - Shobha, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent

¶9

For the applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

¶10

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

27.01.2026

¶13

1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No. 12/2024 registered at Police Station Shobha, District Gariaband (CG) for the offences u/s 103(1), 238, 61 & 3(5) of BNS.

¶14

2. As per the prosecution case, complainant Punitram Markam who is father of deceased had lodged a merg intimation to the effect that his son Rohit Kumar Markam was found missing on 15.07.2024

¶15

2

¶16

from the house of his wife namely Smt. Somari Bai Markam and the dead body of the deceased was buried in the field of Smt. Somari Bai Markam. It is alleged that on 15.07.2024 at about 10 p.m., certain quarrel took place between Somari Bai and her husband Rohit Kumar Markam in her house regarding her love affairs with the present applicant, on which, co-accused Somari Bai called the present applicant and both have conspired to commit murder of deceased. As a part of that conspiracy, the present applicant and coaccused Somari Bai Markam had taken away the deceased in field of Somari Bai Markam where both these accused had assaulted the deceased by iron pipe, due to which, the deceased died on the spot. Thereafter the applicant and co-accused Somari Bai buried the dead body in the field of Smt. Somari Bai. Based on such report, the present applicant has been arrested.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that merely on the basis of suspicion and memorandum statement of co-accused Somari Bai, the present applicant has been arrested and the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged by prosecution. Neither there is any eye-witness to the incident nor any direct evidence to connect the applicant in crime in question. He further submits that during trial witnesses Manohar Singh Netam (P.W.1), Arjun Singh (P.W.2) and Punitram Markam (P.W.3) have been examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 09.10.2024 and there are no criminal antecedents against him; till date out of total 24 witnesses, only 6 have been examined and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant had illicit relationship with deceased’s wife i.e., co-accused which was opposed by the deceased, therefore, in order to get rid of the deceased, his wife (co-accused) and the present applicant have jointly hatched conspiracy and killed the deceased and further they tried to cause disappearance of evidence.

¶19

3

¶20

She further submits that an iron pipe, blue colored T-Shirt, motorcycle and mobile phone were recovered from the present applicant.

¶21

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶22

6. However, looking to the custody period of the applicant and the delay in progress of trial, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶23

7. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶26

Rao

Prakashchand Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakashchand Kashyap 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

A (Juvenile) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Ray Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Gupta Vs Jagdish

Dilip Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sitaram Khatuwa Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramu Kewat Vs the State of Chhattisgarh