Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41035 (CHH)

BUDHMAN SINGH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/7054/2025 · 2025-09-03

Shri Parth Prateem Sahu

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:45252 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7054 of 2025 Budhman Singh S/o Nansai Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Salka, Out Post Umeshwarpur, Police Station And Tahsil Premnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh The Station House Officer, Police Of Out Post Umeshwarpur, Police Station Premnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 04/09/2025 1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 62/2024 registered at Police Station – Out Post Umeshwarpur, Police Station Premnagar, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 02.06.2024 applicant has given blow on the head of deceased by means of axe. Deceased was taken to hospital where he succumbed to injuries. Merg was reported to concerned Police Station and after inquiry he was arrested on 07.06.2024. 3. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, he has not committed any offence as alleged. He submits that at the time of admission in the hospital, it was informed that deceased fell down from height and, therefore, no case would made out under Section 302 of IPC against applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for applicant and further submits that there is extra judicial confession of applicant before Ramdayal Uike (sarpanch). He submits that in postmortem report two incised wounds on the parietal region were noted. Also there is seizure of axe from the possession of applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also considering the statement of Ramdayal Uike (Sarpanch) and postmortem report, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow the application, accordingly, the application is dismissed. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE alfiza