Dismissed¶¶21

Ramu Kewat v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC26 Jan 2026MCRC/454/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; MCRC No. 454 of 2026; Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal; order dated 27.01.2026; regular bail under S. 483 BNSS 2023 rejected; applicant Ramu Kewat stated to be absconder, arrested 16.11.2025; Crime No. 216/2016, P.S. Akaltara, Janjgir-Champa; offences u/ss 294, 506, 323, 452, 147, 148, 302, 307, 450, 149, 325, 449 IPC; co-accused convicted under S. 302 IPC (trial Court) and S. 304 (Part-2)/307 IPC (High Court); 9 of 21 witnesses examined.

What did the court decide?

The court declined to release the applicant on regular bail at this stage, having regard to the fact that the applicant is stated to be an absconder, and rejected the bail application. ¶¶21

Ramu Kewat Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by ALLENA ALLENA ANNAJEE ANNAJEE RAO RAO Date: 2026.01.28 18:16:57 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:4454

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 454 of 2026

¶7

Ramu Kewat S/o Shri Ghanshyam Kewat Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Madhuwa, At Present Podidalha, Thana And Tahsil- Akaltara, Distt.Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

The State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police StationAkaltara, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent

¶10

For the applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Additional Advocate General

¶11

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

27.01.2026

¶14

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. 216/2016 registered at Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa for the offences punishable u/ss 294, 506, 323, 452, 147, 148, 302, 307, 450, 149,325 & 449 of IPC.

¶15

¶16

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 05.10.2016, complainant Radhe Shyam lodged FIR to the effect that on 05.10.2016 at about 7.00 a.m., the applicant and other accused forcibly entered into his house and started assaulting his wife Milotin Bai and his sons Ramdhan and Lakhan by sticks, rod and axe. They were also trying to assault him also, but he ran away from the spot. After some time, when he reached to his house, he saw that accused persons fled away from his house after assaulting his wife and children. All the injured persons were brought to the Community Health Centre, Akaltara for treatment, but his wife Milotin Bai has died in the hospital on the same day itself.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of incident, the applicant was not present and he was studying at Bhilai. He submits that initially the name of the applicant is not mentioned, but all of a sudden with an intention to implicate all the family members, his name has also been added in the statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC. He submits that there was no involvement of the applicant in the commission of offence and even no seizure has been made from him; only on the basis of the statement of injured witnesses the applicant has been roped in along with the other 4 main accused. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 16.11.2025 and till date out of a total 21 witnesses, only 9 have been examined and and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there there two injured eye-witnesses to the

¶19

¶20

incident. He submits that this applicant was absconding after his name was added in the FIR and he has been arrested much after on 16.11.2025. He submits that there are total 5 accused persons in this case and the other 4 accused persons were already convicted by the trial Court under section 302 IPC and thereafter by this Court under section 304 (Part-2), 307 of IPC.

¶21

4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the applicant is stated to be an absconder, I am not inclined to release him on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶22

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶23

Rao

Ramu Kewat v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu Kewat v. the 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

Sonu Madvi Vs State of Chhattisgarh