Likhendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bijelal Sahu S/o Hausilal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Loharidih, Police Station And Tehsil - Rangakharkala, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶20

--- Applicant

¶21

Versus

¶22

2

¶23

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Rengakhar, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. --- Non-Applicant

¶24

MCRC No. 5758 of 2026

¶25

Likhendra Sahu S/o Tulsi Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Loharidih, Police Station And Tahsil Rengakhar Kala, District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶26

--- Applicant

¶27

Versus

¶28

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Rengakhar District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. --- Non-Applicant

¶29

For Applicants : Mr. Kanhaiya Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant(s) /State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate

¶30

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶31

Order on Board

¶32

21/09/2026

¶33

The applicants of MCRC No. 3773/2026, MCRC No. 5758/2026, MCRC No. 7523/2026, and MCRC No. 8522/2026 have preferred these Bail Applications under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 65/2024 registered at Police Station Rengakhar, District Kabirdham, for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 103(2), 238(a), 191(2), 191(3), 189(4), 189(5), 332(a), 324(6), 287, 310(3), 326(g), 61(2)(a), and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNS).

¶34

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.09.2024, complainant Vinod

¶35

3

¶36

Sahu lodged a report alleging that due to political rivalry arising out of the positions held by his parents in the Gram Panchayat, the villagers were bearing a grudge against his family. It is alleged that on the date of the incident, a mob of about 150-200 persons unlawfully entered his house, vandalized household articles, looted various belongings, and thereafter set the house on fire by pouring petrol/diesel and dry paddy stubble. Despite efforts by the police to rescue the occupants, the mob allegedly obstructed them. The complainant’s mother was rescued and taken to hospital, but after the fire was extinguished, the burnt dead body of the complainant’s father, Raghunath Sahu, was found inside the house. The prosecution alleges that the accused persons murdered the deceased and subsequently burnt the body and the house to destroy evidence of the offence. On the basis of the report, Crime No. 65/2024 was registered at Police Station Rengakhar. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused persons were arrested, memoranda and seizures were effected, and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has already been filed.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the applicants are in custody since 16.09.2024. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted, but not a single prosecution witness has been examined till date, and the trial is proceeding at a slow pace. He would also submit that out of the large mob, the FIR implicated 167 named and unnamed persons; 67 persons remain absconding; 69 were arrested, and 23 persons have already been discharged. He would argue that no specific overt act has been attributed to the present applicants, the only allegations against them are that they are part of the mob.

¶38

Learned counsel for the applicants further contends that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been enlarged on regular

¶39

4

¶40

bail by coordinate Bench vide order(s) dated 25.02.2025 passed in MCRC No. 1356/2025, MCRC No. 589/2025, MCRC No. 586/2025, and MCRC No. 1099/2025. He would argue that multiple FIRs have been registered against the applicants arising out of the very same complaint, and the applicants are not habitual offenders; thus, he would pray that the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶41

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the bail applications and submits that earlier bail applications filed on behalf of the applicants were already dismissed on merits, and looking to the gravity of the offences and the nature of mob violence, the applicants are not entitled to any indulgence. He would further submit that while the applicants in MCRC No. 3773/2026 have no criminal antecedents, the applicants in MCRC No. 5758/2026, MCRC No. 7523/2026, and MCRC No. 8522/2026, each are carrying four previous criminal antecedents of a similar nature registered against them in the year 2024 of similar nature. He further submits that MCRC/3773/2026 & MCRC/8522/2026 is the third bail applications, whereas, MCRC No. 5758/2026 and MCRC No. 7523/2026 are the fourth bail applications, and there is no substantial change in circumstances; therefore, all the bail applications deserve to be rejected.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶43

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra , reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810 , has reiterated that prolonged incarceration without trial progress infringes the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, observing as follows:

¶44

“4. We take notice of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 1-11-2022. Although, the charge came to be framed by the Trial Court in the year 2024, yet till this date not a single witness has been examined.

¶45

5

¶46

5. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are left with no other option but to say that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution could be said to have been infringed.

¶47

6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately.

¶48

7. Here is a case wherein past almost 4 years, the petitioner is in jail but not a single witness has been examined.

¶49

8. We order that the petitioner be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose. ”

¶50

Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the applicants have been languishing in jail since 16.09.2024. Though the charge-sheet has been filed, trial has not commenced in effective terms, and not a single witness has entered the witness box. Further, FIR was lodged against 167 named villagers and others; 69 accused persons were arrested; 66 accused persons were charge-sheeted; against 3 juvenile, charge-sheet will be produced; 43 accused persons are facing trial; 23 accused persons have been discharged; similarly situated co-accused have already been granted bail by the coordinate Bench, and only omnibus allegations are levelled against the applicants without attribution of specific roles. Pre-trial detention cannot be allowed to degenerate into punitive incarceration. Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicants on regular bail.

¶51

Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed . It is directed that in the event of each applicant(s) executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.

¶52

6

¶53

50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

¶54

i. They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶55

ii. they shall not act in any manner prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial;

¶56

iii. they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed by the said Court till the final disposal of the trial.

¶57

iv. they shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of this case; violation of which will entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.

¶58

The observations made hereinabove are for the purpose of deciding these bail applications; the trial Court shall decide the case strictly on its own merits without being influenced by this order.

¶59

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

JUDGE

Nadim