1 2025:CGHC:21804 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 723 of 2025 1 - Abhishek Pandey S/o Rajesh Pandey Aged About 28 Years Permanent Add. Bandana Bus Stand Sitapur, At Present Sitapur, Mulajimpara P.S. Sitapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sitapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Sr. Counsel along with Mr. Arvind Shrivastava and Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 09/05/2025 1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.') for his release on bail, before Learned Special Judge Atrocities At Ambikapur, District- Sarguja which has been rejected vide order 2 dated 24.02.2025. 2. The present appellant has been arrested by the Police of Sitapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) on 15.10.2024 in connection with the Crime No. 219/2024 for alleged offence punishable under Sec- tions 365, 323, 302, 201, 506, 212, 147, 120(B) of IPC and Sec- tion 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the deceased Sandeep Lakda was working under contractor Abhishek Pandey (present appellant) as Mistri and committed theft of cement and TMT bar thereafter present appellant filed a complaint against him. It is al- leged that the Pratyush Pandey along with the present appellant and other co-accused persons, abducted Sandeep Lakda and subjected him to physical assault, resulting in his death. The body was allegedly buried in a pit, covered with concrete to destroy evi- dence. Thereafter, offence has been registered and charge sheet has been filed against the applicant and others. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the present ap- pellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. His role as a labor supervisor (Munshi) has been misrepresented and he had no intent or participation in the alleged crime. He further con- tended that the case relies solely on circumstantial evidence and memorandum statements of co-accused individuals, which lack corroboration. There is no direct evidence implicating the appel- lant in the physical assault or murder. Even if we admit entire case 3 of prosecution as gospel truth then also there is nothing to show his involvement in kidnapping or physical assault or to destroy evi- dence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the trial court has rightly passed the order dated 24.02.2025. She further contended that there are 2 previous criminal antecedents against the present appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and pe- rused the order dated 24.02.2025 with utmost circumspection. 7. On 20-07-2024, Salima Lakra came to the police station Sitapur and lodged a report that her husband Sandeep Lakra was taken by accused Gauri Tiwari, Munshi of contractor/ present appellant Abhishek Pandey to get the work of a mason in the school con- struction work in village Ulkiya, where he was working as a mason under Gauri Tiwari, after that on 07-06-2024 at around 7-8 pm, contractor appellant/accused Abhishek Pandey, accused Gauri Ti- wari, Pratyush Pandey killed her husband by beating him and put his dead body in their car and hid it somewhere else. During inves- tigation, while interrogating Pratyush Pandey, Guddu Kumar, Tuleshwar Tiwari, Shailshakti Sahu alias Chhotu, Gauri Tiwari and taking their memorandum statements, it was revealed that they used to work under contractor applicant/accused Abhishek Pandey. Construction work of a high school building was going on 4 in village Ulakiya, in which deceased Sandeep Lakra also worked under contractor Abhishek Pandey. Appellant/accused Abhishek Pandey was also working on the construction of a water tank in vil- lage Beljora, where the bars and cement were stolen, about which Abhishek Pandey was informed that the theft was done by Sandeep Lakra. Then on 07-06-2024, contractor appellant/ac- cused Abhishek Pandey, Pratyush Pandey, Guddu Kumar, Tulesh- war Tiwari, Shailshakti Sahu alias Chhotu, Gauri Tiwari alias Ma- trika Tiwari etc. brought Sandeep Lakra for questioning and these people beat him a lot with baseball bats and kicks. When Sandeep Lakda fell down half dead, these people took him to the cement warehouse of contractor appellant/accused Abhishek Pandey, which is located in Amatoli locality of Sitapur, and after taking him to that warehouse, tied his hands and legs with a rope, locked him and went away from there. On the second day, on 08-06-2024, at around 07:00 in the morning, one of the contractor appellant/ac- cused Abhishek Pandey's tiles mechanic accused Jahangir Ansari and Sabba Ansari called the mobile phone of Abhishek Pandey's driver Raja Yadav and informed that he was not doing anything af- ter seeing Sandeep Lakra. Then those people came there on that information and after they saw that Sandeep Lakra had died there, then they loaded the dead body of that Sandeep Lakra in a pickup vehicle and took it to village Luraina, far away from there, where the contractor applicant/accused Abhishek Pandey got a pit dug through JCB and after that, the body of the deceased Sandeep 5 Lakra was put in that pit and covered with cement and concrete base and then got a water tank built on it under water tank scheme. 8. With the intention of destroying the evidence, the dead body was taken away in the vehicle, buried by a JCB and a base of cement and concrete was made and the contractor applicant/accused Ab- hishek Pandey, who was also getting the construction work of a water tank done under the tap water scheme, took the dead body of Sandeep Lakra and buried it at the same place and the water tank was constructed. Meanwhile these accused with the intention that no one should get information about the kidnapping and mur- der of Sandeep Lakra, systematically sent the mobile phone of the deceased Sandeep Lakra to Mumbai through the accused Shail- shakti Sahu and after reaching there, the mobile was switched on, so that on finding out about the deceased, people would think that he had fled to Mumbai, after which his mobile was thrown in the sea there. This fact has also been clearly revealed in the memo- randum statement of the accused Shailshakti Sahu that he and other accused had made the deceased Sandeep lie down on the ground and one by one started started hitting him and due to ex- cessive beating, when Sandeep Lakda became unconscious, they took the injured Sandeep to the warehouse at Amatoli and there they tied the hands and legs of Sandeep Lakra. 9. Now, the question arises that what is the role of the appellant/ Ab- 6 hishek Pandey in the kidnapping and murder of deceased Sandeep Lakra? 10. Prima facie it has been shown by proper evidence, perusal of the charge sheet and the documents attached with it, that the appel- lant/accused Abhishek Pandey had a major role to play in the kid- napping and murder of the deceased Sandeep Lakra. The role of the present applicant is entirely different from the other co-ac- cused persons who has been granted bail by this Court. The present appellant is the main accused of the crime-in-question. Af- ter the murder of deceased Sandeep Lakra, the criminal act has been done with the intention of destroying the evidence in a very vicious manner. 11. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has rightly rejected the bail application of the present appellant vide order dated 24.02.2025. 12. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is hereby dismissed on merit. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima