1 2025:CGHC:22433 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 790 of 2025 Kaushal Banjara S/o Shri Baddu Banjara Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - Kolihadevri, Thana And Tahsil - Basna, Distt. - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Basna, Police Outpost- Bhanwarpur, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 29.05.2025 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. 315/2016, registered at Police Station – Basna, Police Outpost- Bhanwarpur, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in short, is that the complainant, Bhagat Ram, lodged a report at Police Outpost Bhanwarpur, Police BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.05.30 12:05:13 +0530 2 Station Basna, on 10.10.2013, stating that his brother Hariram had gone to see the Durga Festival on 09.10.2013 but did not return. The next day, his dead body was found near the village pond. Based on this information, Merg No. 77/2013 was registered. During the merg inquiry, it was revealed that the deceased and the co-accused persons had been involved in a previous dispute. The co-accused were arrested, and their memorandum statements were recorded, in which they stated that, due to an old dispute and an incident involving the outraging of the modesty of one of the co- accused, they had murdered the deceased. They further disclosed that they disposed of the body near the village pond with the help of Dilip Sidar. Based on these memorandum statements, the police investigated the matter and filed a chargesheet, showing the applicant as absconding. After the trial, all the other co-accused persons were acquitted of the charges. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of the said village and was never absconding. The applicant had no knowledge that any offence had been registered against him. An application for anticipatory bail was filed, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court solely on the ground that the applicant had been absconding since the year 2016. He further argues that the applicant’s name has been implicated in the case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which, in law, cannot be used as evidence against the applicant. He also submits that the 3 applicant is an elderly and ailing person who had no involvement in the alleged offence, and his name has been falsely roped in due to enmity with a rival group. He further submits that the investigation has been completed, and the charge-sheet was filed on 02.02.2017, wherein the applicant was shown as absconding. However, all the co-accused persons have already been acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 15.12.2017. The evidence collected by the prosecution does not indicate any direct or indirect involvement of the applicant, except for the memorandum statement of the co-accused. 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, submitting that on the night of 09.10.2013, the deceased Hariram went to Ganekera village for a cultural event during the Durga festival, due to prior enmity and an incident involving molestation, co-accused persons including the present applicant allegedly took Hariram who was intoxicated to a crusher plant, where they electrocuted him with an iron rod, causing his death, the body was then disposed of near Dhumabhatha pond with the help of co- accused. She further submits that a case under Sections 302, 34, and later 201 IPC was registered. Co-accused were arrested and sent to judicial custody, while the present applicant remained absconding. A charge sheet under Section 299 CrPC was filed on 02.02.2017 showing him as absconding. She further submits that the applicant has been absconding since the date of registration of 4 the offence, and investigation against him is ongoing, 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. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma {(2014) 2 SCC 171}, has observed that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has neither cooperated with the investigation nor in the trial, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR, and from the perusal of the records available in the case diary, it transpires that due to prior enmity and an incident involving molestation, co-accused persons including the present applicant allegedly took Hariram who was intoxicated to a crusher plant, where they electrocuted him with an iron rod, causing his death, during the examination of remaining co- accused persons doubtful circumstances have arose regarding the involvement of the applicant, further the fact that the trial of the instant case has already been concluded and the co-accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial Court and the applicant is stated to be absconding for last 9 years and his trial was separated from the co-accused, thus, in the light of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lavesh (supra) and 5 Pradeep Sharma (supra), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Kaushal Banjara, involved in Crime No. 315/2016, registered at Police Station – Basna, Police Outpost- Bhanwarpur, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, is rejected. SD/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Bini