Rajim Bai Alias Rajin Mahilange Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 333/2025 registered at Police Station – Baloda District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the o5ence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 34 of IPC

¶16

2. Earlier bail application was withdrawn by the learned counsel for applicant on 18.11.2025 in MCRC No. 9274/2025.

¶17

2

¶18

3. The prosecution story in brief, is that, as per the case diary, on 08.11.2020, the informant Surendra Narang reported that an unidenti;ed male person, found in a burnt condition, was lying across the canal in the Chhata forest area. Upon receipt of the said information, marg intimation proceedings were initiated, followed by preparation of the inquest (panchnama), and thereafter the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Subsequently, proceedings for identi;cation of the unknown dead body were conducted, during which the deceased was identi;ed by his relatives as Bhukhan Rohidas, resident of Village Bagadbari. As per the post-mortem report, the doctor preserved the viscera of the deceased. Upon chemical examination, the viscera report revealed the presence of a chemical poison. During the course of investigation, on 24.07.2025, accused Rajababu Khunte, in connection with Crime No. 284/25 of Police Station Chakrabhatha, made a memorandum statement admitting that, along with his associate Purushottam Khunte, and at the instance of Rajin alias Rajni Bai, he entered into a criminal conspiracy and committed the murder of Bhukhan Rohidas. Pursuant thereto, police remand of accused Rajababu Khunte was obtained, and accused Rajababu Khunte, Purushottam Khunte, and Rajni Bai were taken into custody and interrogated, during which their memorandum statements were recorded. In her statement, Rajni Bai disclosed that she had induced Rajababu Khunte and Purushottam Khunte by o5ering monetary consideration, and thereby caused the murder of Bhukhan Rohidas.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused recorded after an

¶20

3

¶21

unexplained delay of about ;ve years from the date of the incident; there is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence, and the material prosecution witnesses, namely PW-1 Sarojini Khunte and PW-2 Surendra Narayan, have not supported the prosecution case; the applicant had herself lodged a missing report of her father immediately after the incident, which clearly demonstrates her bona ;de conduct; there is no direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged o5ence; the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is in custody since 23.08.2025, the trial is likely to take considerable time, hence he may be released on bail.

¶22

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application of the applicant.

¶23

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the inordinate and unexplained delay of about ;ve years in implicating the applicant and the fact that her alleged involvement rests solely on the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which lacks independent corroboration and is inherently weak in law, coupled with the absence of eyewitnesses, non-support by material prosecution witnesses, and prolonged incarceration of the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶24

7. Let the applicant – Rajim Bai be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) The applicant shall ;le an undertaking to the e5ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates ;xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in

¶26

4

¶27

accordance with law.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date ;xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without suDcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023

¶29

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS 2023. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date ;xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates ;xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS 2023 If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without suDcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶31

8. ODce is directed to send a certi;ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

( Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge

¶34

Jyoti

Rajim Bai Alias Rajin Mahilange v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajim Bai Alias Rajin Mahilange v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Champa Devi Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhongu Pangi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar Peshwani @ Shiv Kukreja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamal Tonde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Natwar Lal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chandrabhan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh