1 2025:CGHC:19167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2960 of 2025 1 - Bijelal Sahu S/o Hausilal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o. Village- Loharidih, Police Station And Tehsil - Rengakharkala, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Naresh Sahu S/o Jalam Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village- Loharidih, Police Station And Tehsil - Rengakharkala, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Ghanshyam Sahu S/o Tumlal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village- Loharidih, Police Station And Tehsil - Rengakharkala, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ...Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Rengakhar, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28.04.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 65 of 2024, registered at Police Station- Rengakhar, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 103(1), 103(2), 238(a), 191(2), 2 191(3), 189(4)(5), 332(a), 324(6), 287, 310(3), 326(g), 61(2)(a) and 115(2) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Brief facts of this case are that, complainant Vinod Sahu son of the deceased Raghunath Sahu lodged a report on 15.09.2024 at about 6PM in the evening against 167 named persons and some other persons alleging inter-alia that his father was sarpanch of village Panchayat for 3 years and presently his mother is holding the post of Sarpanch whereas his father was working as Up- Sarpanch. It was stated by the complainant that 9-10 months ago her mother has been removed from the post of Sarpanch by no-confidence motion by the villagers and his father is working as Up-Sarpanch who was also tried to be removed but success could not be found to the villagers. It is alleged that the villagers were willing to remove his father from the post of Up-Sarpanch and for that reason, the villagers were having grudges from them and on 15.09.2024 his brother in law namely Suresh Kumar Sahu came to his house at about 10 AM to take his mother to the doctor and all the family members were present in the house, then only about 150-200 persons entered into the house of the complainant and told that they have hung the dead body of Shiv Prasad after committing murder of him and the mob started damaging the house hold articles and looted rice, pulses, paddy, oil, ornaments and all other articles of the house and he 3 succeeded to escape from there along with his wife and children and entered into the house of neighbor Mohan Yadav and he was watching the incident from that house. It was alleged by the complainant that co-accused persons of the same village namely Premlal, Himeshwar, Naresh Sahu, Bijelal, Pardeshi Meravi, Laxmichand, Ghanshyam etc poured petrol diesel and some stubble over the house of the complainant and the same was set on fire. It was further alleged that some persons threw gas cylinder which got blasted then only . It is also alleged that his mother was sent to hospital by police then the villagers became more anger and they started quarreling to the police persons and after some time a police force reached there then the complainant entered into his house with the police persons and on search dead body of his father was found in some higher place of the room which was fully burnt and some iron rods and glasses were found nearby the dead body. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that, the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime, they have not committed any offence as alleged against them. He further contended that the prosecution story itself shows that the entire incident was performed by a mob due to a revenge as the father of the complainant has committed an offence of murder of one Shiv Prasad @ Kacharu 4 just before a day, thus it is clear that there is no direct role of the present applicants in the crime in question, therefore, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further submitted that police has lodged the report against 167 persons named and against some other persons but as per the final report only 43 accused persons were arrested and charge sheet was filed against them whereas 24 persons were mentioned as not involved in crime in question and therefore, an application was filed for their discharge which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh whereby total 23 accused persons were discharge from the offences in connection with crime. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicants and stated that on the last date of hearing learned counsel for the applicants stated that the distance between Loharidih, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh and Birsa, Madhya Pradesh was 30 km, however, the actual distance between those two places was hardly 2-3 kms. Hence there is a high chance that the present applicants would be present at the spot of incident and would have active participation in the crime. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case and other materials available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the nature of offence, particularly to the fact that an affidavit in compliance of this court’s order dated 17.04.2025 has been filed by the Superintendent of Police Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh in which he stated that the distance between the place Bijatoa and Loharidih is about five to six kms and by the shortcut motorable way the distance is about two to three kms and since the incident at Loharidih was started at 11:30 AM, therefore, there is every possibility for the accused persons to reach at Bijatola at 14:00 to 14:50 hours of 15.09.2024 after committing the crime. Thus from the very affidavit it is pertinent to note that the present applicants could be at a place where the incident took place and also keeping in view that the name of the present applicants is there in the FIR and the allegation is very serious in nature as of the cylinder was thrown in the house of the deceased due to which the deceased died after getting burnt by more than 90%. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on bail. 7. Accordingly, the present MCRC stands rejected. 6 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza