Dismissed

Sukhdev Yadav @ Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MCRC/4976/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur rejected a third bail application challenging the regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023. The court found serious allegations of murder and relied on eyewitness testimony to conclude the applicants' involvement could not be ignored.

What did the court decide?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 was rejected.

Sukhdev Yadav @ Pandey Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010212342026

2026:CGHC:40268

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 4976 of 2026

¶7

1 - Sukhdev Yadav @ Pandey S/o Arjun Lal Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Madkada, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) 2 - Raju Yadav S/o Late Manglu Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Madkada, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.)

¶8

3 - Rambharos Yadav S/o Toran Lal Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Madkada, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.)

¶9

--- Applicants

¶10

versus

¶11

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

¶12

	... Non-applicant
For Applicants	: Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate
For Non-applicant	: Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

15.09.2026

¶16

1) The applicants have preferred this third Bail Application under Section 483 the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.526/2025 registered at Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 127(1), 296, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 103(1), 324(4) and 324(5) of BNS, 2023.

¶17

¶18

2) Earlier, the applicants had preferred two applications bearing MCRC No. 9792 of 2025 and MCRC No. 1844 of 2026, which were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 02.12.2025 and 23.02.2026, respectively.

¶19

3) As per the prosecution case, in brief, on 01.08.2025, the complainant, Rahul Verma, lodged a report stating that he, along with the deceased, Trilokchand @ Nanu Kaushik, Aman Verma and Emchand Kaushik, had gone to the Mahanadi River and, while returning, they were intercepted by the accused persons, namely, Ajay, Lakki, Ghanshyam, Sarpanch Sahu and about 7–8 other villagers. It is further alleged that the accused persons assaulted Trilokchand and Emchand Kaushik with Tangiya and Lathi, as a result of which Trilokchand sustained injuries and succumbed to death while being taken to the hospital. Hence, the present application.

¶20

4) Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the present applicants have no involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. He would contend that out of three witnesses, two have not named the present applicants, whereas the third eyewitness namely, Emchand Kaushik (PW-3) has made only general allegations against them. He would further contend that the applicants are in jail since 03.08.2025; therefore, he prays that the application for grant of bail may be allowed.

¶21

5) Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that there are serious allegations against the present applicants and, as per the prosecution case, they were involved in the

¶22

¶23

commission of the murder of Trilokchand @ Nanu Kaushik. He would further submit that the application for grant of bail deserves to be rejected.

¶24

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

¶25

7) Having considered the fact that there are serious allegations against the present applicant and further considering that Emchand Kaushik (PW-3), who is an eyewitness, has categorically stated that all the persons who were present before the learned Court below assaulted the deceased and Emchand Kaushik (PW-3), the involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the alleged offence cannot be ignored. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 is rejected .

¶26

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶27

Rekha

Sukhdev Yadav @ Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Yadav @ Pandey 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