1 2025:CGHC:33358 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2880 of 2025 1 - Prem @ Bajrang Shrivas S/o Rajesh Shrivas Aged About 30 Years R/o- Mini Basti, P.S.- Civil Line, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S.- Sakri, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Deputy AG and Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 16/07/2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (New Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.641/2022 registered at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G) for the offence under PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.07.17 14:31:28 +0530 2 Sections 302/34, 120-B, 201 & 341 of the IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.10.2024 passed in MCRC No.6352/2024. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the present applicant hatched a criminal conspiracy along with other co-accused persons against deceased Sanju Tripathi. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, he contacted co-accused Yousuf for procurement of a Pistol, which was the weapon used for commission of the crime. Thereafter, Yousuf supplied the Pistol to the present applicant. Further, when the accused persons reached Bilaspur, the present applicant contacted another shooter, namely Sandeep Yadav @ Pappu Dadhi. On 14.12.2022, the present applicant asked the shooters for commission of the offence on the same day. Thus, it has been alleged that on 14.12.2022, the sharpshooters killed deceased Sanju Tripathi at Sakti bypass. Further case of the prosecution is that there was a serious family dispute between the deceased and Kapil Tripathi, therefore, in order to eliminate the deceased, Kapil Tripathi and other co- accused persons allegedly hired the contract killers (sharpshooters). Based on such allegations, the offence has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that most of the witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. He further submits that even the memorandum and seizure witnesses (PW-4 & PW-5) have also not supported the case of the prosecution. He would submit that the applicant has been in jail 3 since 19.12.2022 and conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. He would further submit that the other co-accused, namely Aman Gupta and Kedar Singh, have already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 04.03.2025 & 03.01.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.16696/2024 & SLP (Crl.) No.14739/2024, respectively. He submits that co-accused, namely Ramesh Rajput & Ashish Tiwari have already been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 05.05.2025 & 07.07.2025 passed in MCRC No.2683/2025 & MCRC No.4268/2025, respectively; therefore, considering all these aspects, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. He submits that the present applicant is the key aide of the main conspirator Kapil Tripathi and he was actively involved in the aforesaid crime. He submits that the present applicant has procured the Pistol from co- accused Yousuf and also paid the money. He further submits that call details dated 23.10.2022 and 24.10.2022 would show that there was some communication between the present applicant and the suppliers of the arms i.e. the co-accused, namely Yousuf. He would submit that on the date of the incident, the present applicant used the mobile of co- accused Ashish Tiwari and contacted one of the shooters, namely Danish Ansari, therefore, his role is different from that of the other co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail. He would submit that the appreciation of evidence is not required at this juncture and moreover, in criminal conspiracy cases, direct evidence is rarely available. Lastly, learned counsel submit that even in criminal conspiracy, a conspirator is liable to 4 be punished with the same penalty as the main offence, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to bail. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the evidence available against him and also considering that the role attributed to the applicant is different from that of the other co-accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka