Sanju Chakravarty @ Bangali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010267482026

2026:CGHC:31743

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 6693 of 2026

¶7

Sanju Chakravarty @ Bangali S/o Deepak Chakravarty Aged About 29 Years R/o 629 Chote Atarmuda Infront Of Jila Panchayat, P.S.Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh, C.G.

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Chakradhar Nagar, DistrictRaigarh, C.G.

¶11

... Non-applicant

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

24.07.2026

¶16

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 300/2025, registered at Police StationChakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (for short ‘BNS’)

¶17

RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

¶18

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.07.2025 at about 12:45 PM, the complainant, Mrs. Rita Maurya, was present at her house

¶19

2

¶20

along with her son Nitish Maurya and daughter Roshni Maurya. At that time, the juvenile in conflict with law, Raghuveer Sarathi alias Anshu, co-accused Chitru alias Sameer, and the present applicant, Sanju Chakraborty alias Bengali, were allegedly roaming in the locality. It is alleged that Chitru alias Sameer stated that Nitish Maurya should be taught a lesson, whereupon all three proceeded towards the house of Nitish Maurya, called him outside, and started knocking on the door. When Nitish Maurya came out of the house, Raghuveer Sarathi alias Anshu and the present applicant allegedly caught hold of both his hands, while Chitru alias Sameer, armed with a knife, assaulted him repeatedly on the neck and threatened to kill him. On the basis of the report lodged in the matter, a criminal case was registered against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the present bail application.

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that out of the total 11 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, 8 witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court and, therefore, there is no likelihood of the applicant influencing the material witnesses. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the deposition of the injured witness, Nitish Maurya (PW-1), who has specifically stated in his examination-inchief that co-accused Chitru alias Sameer inflicted the knife blows, whereas the present applicant and co-accused Raghuveer Sarathi alias Anshu merely caught hold of his hands and assaulted him with

¶22

3

¶23

hands and fists. It is also submitted that PW-1 has admitted that a counter FIR was lodged by the applicant and the co-accused persons against the victim side. He further submits that PW-2, PW3, PW-4 and PW-5, who are closely related/interested witnesses, have also consistently deposed that the present applicant did not inflict any knife injury and had only held the victim and assaulted him with hands and fists. It is further contended that PW-6, an independent witness, has not specifically attributed any overt act to the present applicant. He also points out that the co-accused juvenile in conflict with law has already been granted bail by the competent Court. It is submitted that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 09.08.2025, i.e., for about 11 months, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. In these circumstances, considering the nature of the allegation attributed to the applicant and the progress of the trial, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶24

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. She also submits that the applicant was an active participant in the incident and had acted in furtherance of the common intention of the co-accused persons. The prosecution case specifically alleges that the applicant, along with co-accused Raghuveer Sarathi alias Anshu, restrained the victim by holding both of his hands, thereby facilitating co-accused Chitru alias

¶25

4

¶26

Sameer to repeatedly assault the victim with a knife on his neck with an intention to cause his death. She further submits that the evidence adduced during trial, including the testimony of the injured witness, clearly establishes the presence and participation of the applicant in the commission of the offence. Merely because the applicant is not alleged to have inflicted the knife blows himself does not diminish his liability, as his role was instrumental in enabling the principal assailant to carry out the attack. It is further submitted that the offence is of a serious nature involving a brutal assault with a deadly weapon, and the trial is still pending. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the specific role attributed to the applicant, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the present bail application be rejected.

¶27

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

¶28

6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the present applicant, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the material available on record, and further the fact that though learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the knife blows were inflicted by co-accused Chitru alias Sameer and that the applicant had only caught hold of the victim, the record prima facie reveals that the applicant actively participated in the occurrence by restraining the victim, thereby facilitating the co-accused in repeatedly assaulting him with a knife on a vital part of the body, namely the neck. The evidence of the injured witness and other prosecution witnesses

¶29

5

¶30

examined so far prima facie supports the prosecution case regarding the presence and participation of the applicant. It is true that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, 8 witnesses have already been examined and that the juvenile co-accused has been granted bail; however, the case of the present applicant stands on its own facts and the grant of bail to the juvenile cannot, by itself, entitle the applicant to similar relief. Furthermore, since the trial has reached an advanced stage and only a few witnesses remain to be examined, this Court is of the view that the proceedings are likely to conclude within a reasonable period. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the active role attributed to the applicant, and the advanced stage of the trial, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

¶31

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sanju Chakravarty @ Bangali, involved in Crime No. 300/2025, registered at Police Station- Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected.

¶32

8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶33

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶34

Rahul Dewangan

Sanju Chakravarty @ Bangali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

Sanju Chakravarty @ Bangali 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

Dinesh Hiyal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A B C Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nirmala Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saroj Singh Vs Additional Divisional Railway Manager and Estate Officer

Sagar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh