Allowed

Thakur Ram Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026MCRC/7017/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted regular bail to an applicant implicated in a murder case solely on the basis of a memorandum statement. The court allowed bail on the ground of parity with a coordinate bench order releasing a co-accused on similar facts.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- subject to conditions appearing in the judgment.

Thakur Ram Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.17 10:31:17 +0530

¶2

¶3

CGHC010277062026 2026:CGHC:40504

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 7017 of 2026

¶7

Thakur Ram Pal S/o Shri Shiva Pal Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Jaraud, P.S. Bhatapara Gramin, Distt. Baloda BazarBhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶8

	... Applicant versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara	Through Police Station Suhela, Distt. Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant
For Applicant	: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For Non-Applicant	: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A.

¶9

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶10

Order on Board

¶11

16.09.2026

¶12

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.249/2025, registered at PS- Suhela, District- BalodabazarBhatapra, (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190 & 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959.

¶13

¶14

2. Case of prosecution in brief, is that the complainant Hirawan Sahu made written complaint alleging that his younger brother Gopal Sahu went to see Durga Mela at Suhela on 27.09.2025 with other persons in the night at 8.00 hours and he did not return to his house. On the next day at 6.00 AM, his dead body found near house of Shankar Verma and some persons have assaulted upon him and committed murder. On the basis of above complaint, an FIR was registered against the unknown persons vide FIR No.249/2025 under section 103(1) of BNS and after investigation and collection of material and recording the statements, the charge sheet was filed against the present applicant and other accused persons.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused. FIR was lodged against the unknown persons and name of the present applicant does not appear in the FIR. The applicant has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the allegation that he is a friend of the co-accused persons and was allegedly present at the place of occurrence. There is no eye-witness in this case. No weapon was recovered from the present applicant, the alleged knife was recovered from another accused person namely Samir Verma. As per case of the prosecution, the allegations against the applicant is only of assault by hands and fists. There is no any

¶16

¶17

other criminal antecedent against the applicant. He would further submit that the other co-accused namely Roshan Yadav @Thaneshwar Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 03.03.2026 passed in MCRCNo. 1858/2026 and the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the other co-accused, who has been released on bail. Applicant is in jail since 01.10.2025, conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail.

¶18

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. However, he would fairly submits that the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the other co-accused, who has been released on bail.

¶19

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

¶20

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, the nature of the allegations against the applicant and upon perusal of the case diary, which reveals that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and that the present applicant was not named therein; further considering that the co-accused, namely Roshan Yadav @Thaneshwar Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench; and as the conclusion of the trial may take some time, this Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, is of the opinion that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶21

¶22

7. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶23

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶24

(b)he 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court; and

¶25

¶26

The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶29

A j i n k y a

Thakur Ram Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Ram Pal 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