Champa Mourya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate alongwith Mr. Vikash Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. for the State

¶21

2

¶22

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.)

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

02/07/2026

¶25

Both these bail applications are arising out of same crime number, therefore, they are being heard and decided together.

¶26

The learned State counsel would submit that he is in possession of the case diary of the case and ready to argue the case for final hearing.

¶27

The applicant Mahesh Kashyap and Abhishek Mourya (MCRC No. 5811/2026) have been arrested on 24.06.2025 and 27.06.25, respectively and the applicant Champa Mourya (MCRC No.5815/2026) has been arrested on 25.06.2025 in connection with Crime No. 69/2025 registered at Police Station - Bastar, District - Bastar at Jagdalpur for the offences under sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The MCRC No. 5811/2026 is the first bail application of the applicants Mahesh Kashyap and Abhishek Mourya, whereas the MCRC No. 5815/26 is the second bail application of the applicant Champa Mourya. The first bail application of the applicant Champa Mourya has been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8689/2025.

¶28

The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.06.2025, on the issue of previous land dispute, the present applicants as well as the other coaccused persons have assaulted the deceased Thibaru Ram Mourya by which he received multiple injuries on his body and during the

¶29

3

¶30

treatment, he died on 22.06.2025. The son of the deceased, namely, Lambodar Mourya lodged report to the police on 21.06.2025. On postmortem, it was opined that the death of the deceased was due to injuries and his death was homicidal in nature. The FIR has been registered and the applicants have been arrested and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that out of total 27 witnesses, 15 witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court and none of them have duly supported the prosecution's case. There are material omission and contradictions in their evidences and the involvement of the present applicants in the offence in question is suspicious. The name of the applicants Mahesh Kashyap and Abhishek Mourya are not there in the FIR which has been lodged by son of the deceased. He would also submit that wooden stick has been seized from Abhishek Mourya whereas nothing has been seized from the applicant Mahesh Kashyap and general and omnibus allegation have been leveled against them. They would also submit that the first bail application of Champa Mourya has been rejected on 13.11.2025 at the time when witnesses were not examined and now, the witnesses have been examined and they have not stated anything against the applicant Champa Mourya as well as other accused persons and most of the witnesses have turned hostile. They would also submit that the alleged eye witnesses are the interested witnesses, who are relative of the deceased. The applicants are in jail since 24.06.2025, 27.06.2025 and 25.06.2025, respectively. The final adjudication of the case will take its own time. There is no criminal

¶32

4

¶33

antecedent against the applicants. He would also submit that the coaccused Dayaram Mourya has been released on bail vide order dated 08.10.2025 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 7636/2025, therefore, the present applicants may also be released on bail.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the state opposes and have submitted that there are various eye witnesses to the incident, who are Lambodar, Dinesh Kumar, Sanat Kumar Kashyap, Som Singh Kashyap, Shankar Kashyap, Dayavati Mourya, Ratiram Kashyap, Sampat Mourya, Damuram Mourya and they have been examined before the learned trial Court and supported the prosecution's case that the accused persons including the present applicants have assaulted the deceased by which he died. The assault was made by hand and fist and danda and the injuries caused by danda were found on the body of the deceased at the time of his postmortem. He would also submit that against the order dated 13.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8689/2025, the applicant Champa Mourya preferred an SLP bearing SLP (Crl.) No. 6605/2026 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but has withdrawn the said SLP vide order dated 11.05.2026 and thus, at the time when the SLP was withdrawn, 06 witnesses were examined. He would also submit that Dayaram Mourya was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 on the ground of his age as he was aged about 72 years. There are specific allegation against the present applicants. Trial of the case is in progress and 15 witnesses out of total 27 witnesses have already been examined, therefore, the present applicants are not entitled for bail.

¶35

5

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as material annexed with the bail applications.

¶37

Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and the manner in which the offence is said to have been committed, there are numerous eye witnesses who deposed against the present applicants and commission of the offence by them, further considering that the applicant Champa Mourya has withdrawn the SLP (Crl) No. 6605/2026 vide order dated 11.05.2026 filed by her against rejection order of her bail and also that the co-accused Dayaram Mourya was granted bail on the ground of his age, without commenting anything on merits, I am not inclined to release these applicants on bail, therefore, the bail applications of the applicants Mahesh Kashyap, Abhishek Mourya and Champa Mourya are dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶38

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶39

Sumit

Champa Mourya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Champa Mourya 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

Smt. Sandhya Kumari Vs Aman Kumar Singh

Amit Kumar @ Jeetu Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Balakrishna Verma Alias Chotu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Salim Sheikh

Office Reference Vs Shri Firoj Khan

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Vinod Kumar Garasiya