Dismissed

Rajesh Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026MCRC/7057/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the first regular bail application of Rajesh Sahu, who has been in custody since 23 October 2025 for offences under Sections 103(1), 109 and 3(5) BNS. The FIR alleges that the applicant and a co-accused assaulted the deceased with a knife. The applicant relied on the injured witness's Section 183 BNSS statement, which allegedly did not attribute the knife injury to him. The court held that at the bail stage it cannot examine the credibility of witnesses or the veracity of the FIR; it is confined to verifying the existence of a prima facie case, which the FIR establishes. Accordingly, bail was refused.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected.

Rajesh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010299322026

2026:CGHC:40618

NAFR

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.09.22 15:32:45 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 7057 of 2026

¶8

*** -** Rajesh Sahu S/o Ram Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Dr. Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Nearby The House Of Shambhu Yadav, Telha Nala, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

*** -** State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Khursipar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

	... Non-Applicant
For Applicant	: Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate
For Non-Applicant	: Mr. Kawal Jeet Singh Saini, DeputyGovernment Advocate

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

17/09/2026

¶16

1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as he is in jail since 23.10.2025 in connection with Crime No. 273/2025 registered in Police Station – Khursipar, District Durg (CG) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109 and 3(5) of BNS.

¶17

¶18

2. As per prosecution story, on 22.10.2025 at about 04:00 pm, nearby Jyoti Fancy Stores, Service Road Khursipar, the present applicant and co-accused namely Ravindra Verma @ Golu in furtherance of common intention assaulted the deceased- Mangal Singh with a knife on his chest. When deceased’s friend namely Tushar intervened, they assaulted him too with knife on his stomach. On such complaint, police registered the offences as stated above against the present applicant and co-accused Ravindra Verma @ Golu.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. He would contend that statement under Section 183 of BNSS of injured/ eyewitness-Tushar was recorded, wherein he has stated that the co-accused- Ravindra Verma @ Golu assaulted the deceased on chest by means of knife but there is no allegation against the present applicant inflicting any knife injury over body of deceased. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail from 23.10.2025, charge sheet has been filed. Thus, he would pray for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶20

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application.

¶21

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

¶22

6. Mr. Gupta has relied on the statement of injured Tushar Verma recorded under Section 183 of BNSS wherein it is stated that the

¶23

¶24

other co-accused inflicted the knife injury on the deceased whereas in the FIR it is categorically stated that present applicant along with other co-accused person namely Ravindra Verma verbally abused and physically assaulted the deceased using knife .

¶25

7. In my considered view, evidence adduced by that witness cannot be appreciated at this stage as Courts are precluded from undertaking detailed examination of evidence that touch upon the merits of the case and reliability and credibility of the witnesses are matters to be assessed by the learned Trial Court during the course of trial.

¶26

8. It is settled principle of law that the Court’s role at the bail stage is confined to verifying the existence of prima facie case. In the present case, FIR was lodged wherein specific allegations have been made to the effect that the named accused persons verbally abused and physically assaulted the deceased using knife but the veracity of the allegations made in the FIR cannot be examined in light of defense taken by Mr. Gupta.

¶27

9. Having considered the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, present is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected .

¶28

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶29

vatti

Rajesh Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Sahu 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