1 2025:CGHC:49094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6472 of 2025 1 - Ritik Keshwani @ Babbu S/o Shri Chandrabhan Keshwani Aged About 23 Years R/o Ganga Vihar, Gali No. 04, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : M. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate (through virtual mode) For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 24/09/2025 1. This is the second bail application of the applicant Ritik Keshwani @ Babbu, who has been arrested 24.04.2024 by the police station Tikrapara, Raipur, in Crime No. 319 of 2024, for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 and 302 of IPC. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2025, in MCRC No. 2047 of 2025. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.06 17:09:25 +0530 2 2. The case of prosecution is that on 22.04.2024 at about 07:30 p.m. when the deceased Aryan Tomar came out from his house and roaming on the way, he was assaulted by knife by co-accused Suraj and the present applicants and other accused persons have also assaulted him by hands and fists by the injuries caused by co-accused Suraj the deceased died on the spot. Merg intimation was lodged by father of the deceased and during investigation, the memorandum statement of present applicant as well as other accused persons have been recorded, in which they disclosed the entire incident. The weapon of offence, i.e., knife has been seized from co-accused Suraj Nandey. The present applicant has been arrested on 24.04.2024 and after investigation charge sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, on 21.07.2025, the information about the preliminary inquiry report dated 04.02.2025 conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Raipur is disclosed under right to information act, and thereafter the applicant came to know that in the preliminary enquiry report the higher police authorities have found certain lapses in investigation and the departmental enquiry is initiated against the then two investigating officers. In the preliminary enquiry report it has been clearly found that the faulty investigation, the false memorandum statement was prepared in which Jayesh Giri was shown to be the witness, who actually is an accused and based on the said false memorandum, the present applicant has been implicated in the offence. He would also submit that the applicant was unaware about the said preliminary enquiry report dated 07.02.2025 submitted by the Additional 3 Superintendent of Police, when his first bail application was decided and therefore, he could not take such plea at that time. He would also submit that the police has deliberately included the applicant in the offence. Against such conduct of the police, the family members of the applicant have made various complaints for proper investigation, but his complainant was not considered. In the preliminary enquiry, it was found that there is no concrete evidence against the applicant and from the statement of the eyewitnesses namely Sidhwant Nishad, Subham Chandrakar and Sameer Sahu, the involvement of the other accused persons namely Ravi Tondey, Suraj Nande, Subham Giri Goswami and Jayesh Giri Goswami are reflected, but not the present applicant. The applicant was not even present on the place of incident and on the basis of tower location details of the mobile phone of the applicant, his presence was found far away from the place of incident. The applicant is in jail since 24.04.2024, and till date only 07 witnesses have been examined, final adjudication of the case will take its own time, and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and has submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits on 02.04.2025. It cannot be presumed that the applicant or his family members were not in knowledge of the preliminary enquiry report, as the family members of the applicant have made various complaints to the higher police authorities for proper investigation. There are two offence registered vide Crime No. 318 of 2024 and 319 of 2024. On the report of Siddhant Nishad, the Crime No. 318 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 4 307, 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act was registered against the accused Subham Giri Goswami, and Ravi Tondey, whereas on the report of Narendra Tomar, the Crime No. 319 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 302, 506, 323, 34 of IPC has been registered against Subham Giri, Suraj Nande, Ritik Keshwani and Ravi Tondey. He would further submit that though there may be some lapses on the part of the police officers, but there is sufficient material and evidence available in the charge sheet against the applicant. A departmental proceeding was initiated against erring police officers, which does not mean that there is no evidence against the applicant in the charge sheet. He would also submit that there is 06 criminal antecedents against the applicant registered at various police stations of Raipur between 2020 to 2023 having the offence of Sections 392, 394, 379, 435 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. The trial of the case is in progress and 07 witnesses have already been examined, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as documents submitted along with the bail application. 6. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties, the nature of the allegations and material collected during the investigation, and further considering that the preliminary enquiry report dated 04.02.2025, whereas the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court on 02.04.2025, the applicant could have raised such ground at the time of deciding his first bail application, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds raised by the applicant is not appealing to release him on bail. By saying that the 5 information about the preliminary enquiry report is disclosed on 21.07.2025, and only thereafter, the applicant and his family members came to know about lapses in investigation, cannot be considered to be a sufficient ground to consider the second bail application and to release the applicant on bail. The discrepancies reflected in the preliminary enquiry report, the conduct of the police officers and the evidence available in the charge sheet against the applicant requires evidence, as to what irregularities have been committed by the police authorities during the investigation. There is prima facie evidence available in the charge sheet that the applicant is also involved in the offence along with the other accused persons. The first bail application of the application was rejected on merits on 02.04.2025, the trial of the case is in progress and 07 witnesses have been examined, the applicant is having 06 criminal antecedents including the serious nature of offences, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the present second bail application of the applicant Ritik Keshwani is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved