Bhojram Nishad @ Raj Babu @ Pokha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:4760

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 951 of 2026

¶6

Bhojram Nishad @ Raj Babu @ Pokha S/o Late Dinesh Nishad Aged About 18 Years R/o Nehru Ward Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. (Description Of The Applicant Mentioned As Per Charge Sheet).

¶7

... Applicant.

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶10

--- Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate with Ms. Gunja Taram, Advocate

¶12

For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

28/01/2026

¶16

This is 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.360/2025, registered at PS -Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (CG), for

¶17

2

¶18

commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 115(2), 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS.

¶19

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on the evening of 4^th July 2025, at about 08.00 p.m, near the shop of one Mr. Sanjay Mandle, the deceased Tamraj Mahipal resident of village Tora, was sitting with Dileshwar Dahariya, Rajesh, Krishana and others. At that moment the principal accused Sunil Patre and Amardeep Patre, both sons of Munshi Patre, along with other associates, arrived at the spot in two Vehicles and, thereafter, the accused persons got down from their vehicles and began to hurl obscene abuses and launched a violent assault upon Tamraj Mahipal using hands, fists, sticks and sharpedged weapons targeting vital parts of the body particularly the head and chest with an intention to cause his death, due to which, Tamraj Mahipal suffered grievous injuries and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries. Based upon report, FIR was registered and applicant has been arrested in aforementioned crime/offence.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Neither any incriminating material/article seized from the applicant nor his name is mentioned in the FIR or chargesheet. There is no material/evidence available suggesting active participation of this applicant in the alleged crime. Only on the basis of memorandum statement of accused/Salik Ram Dhruv and other co-accused persons, this applicant has been made accused in this case. In the Test Identification Parade, present applicant was not

¶21

3

¶22

identified. In the statements of eye-witnesses recorded before the Polcie, they have not made any single allegations against this applicant. Co-accused Salik Ram Dhruv has been granted by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2025 in MCRC No.8736/2025. Applicant is in jail since 11.07.2025, charge-sheet has been filed, conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail.

¶23

Per contra, learned State Counsel opposing the bail application of the applicant. He pointed out that during investigation clothes has been seized, in which, blood stains has been found.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that neither any incriminating material has been seized from the applicant nor his name is mentioned in the FIR, only on the basis of statements of coaccused, this applicant has been made accused in this case, further considering that co-accused Salik Ram Dhruv has been granted bail by this Court, detention period of the applicant, conclusion of trial may take some time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶26

Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that applicant shall be released on regular bail, on his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in like sum to satisfaction of concerned Court on the conditions that-

¶27