1 2025:CGHC:48073 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7413 of 2025 Dharamraj Maravi @ Dharmu S/o Rambharos Maravi Aged About 38 Years R/o Pali, P.S. - Pali, Distt.- Korba, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer- Police Station Pali, Distt.- Korba, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.09.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 116/2025 registered at Police Station : Pali, District – Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 331(6), 324(4), 326(g), 296, 351(2), 190 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, a written complaint was lodged by the complainant on the night of 28/03/2025, between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.19 12:56:58 +0530 2 p.m., alleging that Sanjay Bhawnani, Rajesh Dongre, Dharmu Maravi, Kanhaiya Jaiswal, Rahul Jaiswal, and others forcibly entered the complainant’s house, issued death threats, used filthy language, and set fire to household items, including a bed, scooter, television, and power board. The complainant’s family was compelled to barricade themselves inside the house for safety. It is alleged that they thereby committed the present offence. The applicant has been in jail since 25.08.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits one of the deceased, namely Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal, was also a resident of Pali and was 45% disabled, suffering from a locomotor disability. He had initially started a coal transport business after the opening of new mines at Pali. From the very first day of his business, Roshan Singh, who is the prime accused in the murder of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal, started giving him threats. Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal was continuously subjected to incidents of harassment and threat calls from Roshan Singh. In this regard, he lodged a written complaint at Police Station, Pali, which was registered as FIR bearing Crime No. 325/2024 on 22.11.2024, naming Roshan Singh Thakur, Durgesh @ Lala Thakur, Sushant Singh Thakur, and Gaurav Thakur as accused. He further submits that subsequent to the registration of the said FIR, the accused persons again started threatening Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal, showing no fear of the police despite the pending case against them. They continuously harassed and tortured him, compelling him to again lodge a written complaint on 19.02.2025 before Police Station, Pali. He also submits that on the date of the incident, i.e., 28.03.2025, Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal was engaged in assisting a transporter in loading trucks at the mines, independently and without the involvement of Roshan Singh. This 3 particular act was against the interests of Roshan Singh, who thereafter began abusing and harassing him and pressurizing the Mines Officers to stop Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal from entering the mines. Ultimately, one vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-04/JC-4238 was blacklisted by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) at the instance of Roshan Singh, who was determined to prevent Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal from operating at the mines. On 28.03.2025, without any rhyme or reason, the hooligans of Roshan Singh started an argument with Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal, which soon escalated into a violent fight. He submits that the deceased was brutally assaulted with firearms, gupti, knives, and other weapons, resulting in more than 25 injuries on his body, leading to his death on the spot. When this news spread in Pali, the brothers and relatives of the deceased immediately approached Police Station, Pali, to register an FIR against the accused persons. There were more than five eyewitnesses to the incident, and the entire occurrence was also captured on CCTV. However, the police attempted to delay the matter and finally registered the FIR at around 3:30 a.m. on 29.03.2025. After registration of the FIR against the accused persons, the police, at their instance, started harassing the family members of the deceased as well as the eyewitnesses of the murder to compel them to change their statements. Initially, at the instance of the relatives of the accused persons, FIR bearing Crime No. 115/2025 was registered on the complaint of Pratibha Singh, wife of the main accused Roshan Singh, for offences under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296, 115(3), and 351(2) of the BNS on 29.03.2025 at around 4:15 p.m., implicating the family members of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal and the eyewitnesses of the incident. He submits that within a short span of 15 minutes, another FIR was registered against the present applicant and others at the instance of 4 Smt. Sandhya Singh Thakur, mother of accused Sanskar Thakur, who is also alleged to have been involved in the murder of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal. It is relevant to mention here that since the brutal murder of a local boy had caused widespread outrage and protest in Pali, the police initially registered FIRs against the accused persons, but later, under pressure, registered FIRs against the eyewitnesses and family members of the deceased. Subsequently, FIR bearing Crime No. 118/2025 was registered on 29.03.2025 at around 5:30 p.m., i.e., within 20 minutes of the earlier FIR, for offences under Sections 190, 191(2), 296, and 115(2) of the BNS, corresponding to Sections 149, 147, 294, and 323 of the IPC. This FIR was lodged by Saurabh Shrivas, a relative of the accused, once again targeting the eyewitnesses and family members of the deceased. He submits that the applicant along with others challenged the FIR bearing Crime No. 116/2025 before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in W.P.(Cr.) No. 205/2025. After detailed hearing, the applicant was granted interim relief on 17.04.2025, and subsequently, on 13.08.2025, the matter was finally heard, wherein the applicants were granted protection till the filing of the final report. On 21.08.2025, the applicant duly acknowledged the above order before Police Station, Pali, and submitted his willingness to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. He further submits that in other crime numbers registered after the death of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal, i.e., Crime Nos. 115/2025, 117/2025, 118/2025, and 127/2025, the charge sheets have already been filed. He also submits that one of the similarly situated co-accused, namely Sanjay Bhawnani, has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 03.09.2025 in MCRCA No. 1338/2025. He submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 25.08.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant 5 of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel State counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector oppose the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court. They submits that applicant along with other co-accused persons forcefully entered the complainant’s house, issued death threats, used filthy language, and set fire to household items, including a bed, scooter, television, and power board. The complainant’s family was compelled to barricade themselves inside the house for safety, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and further considering that there are cross-reports of the incidents, both sides have received injuries, and from the side of the applicant, one person, namely Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal, died. The accused in the cross-case, for which an FIR was lodged by the applicant against the complainant party and others, are in jail, and their bail applications have also been dismissed by this Court. So far as the present applicant is concerned, he was also involved in the altercation, due to which the injured received simple injuries. Also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and the applicant has been in jail since 25.08.2025 and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 6 7. Let the applicant – Dharamraj Maravi @ Dharmu involved in Crime No. 116/2025 registered at Police Station : Pali, District – Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 331(6), 324(4), 326(g), 296, 351(2), 190 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against his, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial 7 court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek