Dismissed

Gajanand Raj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026MCRC/5453/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the second bail application of two brothers accused of assaulting a father and son with sticks, resulting in the son's death. The court relied on the eyewitness statements and the fact that 16 of 25 witnesses had already been examined, holding that the applicants were not entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously.

Gajanand Raj Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

NIRMALA RAO

CGHC010232492026

2026:CGHC:40606

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 5453 of 2026

¶8

1 - Gajanand Raj S/o Siyaram Raj Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Chandali P.S. Laalpur DistrictMungeli (C.G.)

¶9

2 - Gokul S/o Siyaram Raj Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Chandali P.S. Laalpur District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station - Laalpur Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Applicants : Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy.A.G.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

17.09.2026

¶17

This is the second bail application of the applicants. The first bail application of the applicants was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.5.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 3252 of 2025. The applicants have preferred this Second 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. 2/2025 registered at Police

¶18

¶19

Station Laalpur, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 103, 351(3), 117(2), 115(2) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

¶20

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.01.2025, at about 8:00-9:00 PM, the complainant Rajobai was feeding her children when she heard the noise of a quarrel between her husband and her son, Sunil Yadav, on the road outside their house. Upon coming out of the house, she allegedly saw the accused persons, namely Gajanand and his brother Gokul, residents of the same village, assaulting her husband and son with sticks and threatening to kill them, alleging that they had abused them near their house. It is alleged that on account of assault sustained by her husband and son Sunil Yadav, they fell unconscious on the road. They were subsequently taken by the police to CHC Lormi for medical treatment and were admitted there. During the course of treatment, Sunil Yadav succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the information furnished by the complainant, a merg intimation was registered at Police Station Lalpur; thereafter, a First Information Report was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 351(3), 117(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the matter was taken up for investigation.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the charge-sheet has been filed, there are no previous criminal antecedents against the applicants, and they have been languishing in jail since 03.01.2025, whereas the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, the instant bail application may kindly be allowed.

¶22

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the eyewitnesses, namely, Smt. Rajobai w/o Ganesh Yadav, Smt. Jamuna Bai w/o late Keju Yadav, Smt. Savita Bai w/o late Sunil Yadav

¶23

¶24

(deceased), and the injured victim, Ganesh Yadav, have categorically stated that the present applicants assaulted the deceased with sticks in their hands and attempted to murder Sunil Yadav. They were taken to the hospital, where, during the course of treatment, the complainant's son, Sunil Yadav, passed away. Therefore, the bail application of the applicants deserves to be rejected.

¶25

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

¶26

Having considered eyewitnesses’ statements against the present applicants and the trial is at advance stage, as 16 out of 25 witnesses have already been examined, this Court is of the view that the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶27

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected .

¶28

Needless to say, the Trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶31

Nimmi

Gajanand Raj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanand Raj 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