Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10292 (CHH)

RAVEL SINGH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRCA/289/2025 · 2025-03-03

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:10279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 289 of 2025 Ravel Singh S/o Ganguram Santnami Aged About 73 Years R/o Kagdehi, Post Samoda, Distt - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Kharora Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 03.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 153/2006, registered at Police Station – Kharora District- Raipur(C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 456, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, a complainant named Punautin Bai lodged a complaint at Police Station Kharora on 02.06.2006, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 between 08:00 and 09:00 A.M., alleging that more than 14-15 persons, Sumeri Satnami, Sewaram Satnami, Lalji Satnami, Dheluram Satnami, Keju Satnami, Kastur Satnami, Kuleshwari Satnami, Mahavir Satnami, Jaklu Satnami, Tukaram Satnami, Khelu, Tibhu Satnami, Krishna Satnami, and others including present applicant from the village, forcefully entered her house while shouting and carrying tanglis and sticks. They attacked the complainant’s husband with a pharsi and sabbal, striking him on the neck, near the back of the head, and below the head. Following the complaint, a case of murder was registered. After a full investigation, the charge sheet was presented before the court on 25.08.2006, as per the report received from the police station. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the applicant has been a resident of his hometown since the alleged incident in 2006 until the issuance of the warrant in 2024. Despite this, the police authorities never approached him, depriving him of the opportunity to present his side of the story. He also submits that the applicant is now an elderly person, over 73 years old, who is unable to walk and requires assistance from family members for daily activities. In light of these circumstances, it is urged that the applicant's arrest after 19 years would serve no purpose. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, 3 submitting that the present applicant, along with other co-accused persons, forcibly entered the complainant's house while shouting and carrying tanglis and sticks. They attacked the complainant's husband with a pharsi and sabbal, striking him on the neck, near the back of the head, and below the head. Due to the said assault, the injured person died, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and material on record in the case diary also considering the fact that the present applicant, along with other co-accused persons, forcibly entered the complainant's house while shouting and carrying tanglis and sticks, they attacked the complainant's husband with a pharsi and sabbal, striking him on the neck, near the back of the head, and below the head. Due to the said assault, the injured person died, therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Ravel Singh, involved in Crime No. 153/2006, registered at Police Station – Kharora District- Raipur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 456, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan