1 2025:CGHC:51372 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8220 of 2025 Shishpal Vashnik S/o Durjan Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Gandhi Chowk, Rajhara, P.S. Rajhara, District- Balod (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Rajhara, District- Balod (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) MCRC No. 8221 of 2025 Kayamuddin Hasan S/o Kaimul Hasan Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No.21, Purani Basti Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Rajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant in MCRC No.8220 of 2025 : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Applicant in MCRC No.8221 of 2025 : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Dy. A.G and Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.10.2025 1. Since the above-mentioned two bail applications arise out of same crime number, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These are the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 80/2025 registered at Police Station Rajhara, District : Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 281, 125(A), 106(1) of BNS with respect to applicant, Shishpal Vashnik and for the offence punishable under Sections 103, 109, 61(2), 238(B), 3(5) of BNS with respect to applicant, Kayamuddin Hasan. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant, Shubham Kuthare, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Rajhara alleging that an unknown vehicle hit a scooty, resulting in the death of his sister, Barkha Wasnik, and injuries to Mathura Mandavi. During the course of investigation, it was found that the accused, Shishupal, was harassing his wife, deceased Barkha Wasnik. Therefore, he conspired with co-accused Kayamuddin to kill her, and an amount of Rs.60,000/- was agreed to be paid to Kayamuddin for the said work. Subsequently, the accused persons hit Barkha’s scooty near Hanuman Mandir turn, with a Bolero vehicle, causing Barkha Wasnik and another woman to 3 fall. Thereafter, the vehicle was stopped and accused Shishupal assaulted injured Barkha with an iron rod, striking her head and back 3 - 4 times, causing her death on the spot, which led to the registration of alleged offence under Sections 281, 125(A), 106(1) of BNS with respect to applicant, Shishpal Vashnik and for the offence punishable under Sections 103, 109, 61(2), 238(B), 3(5) of BNS with respect to applicant, Kayamuddin Hasan, Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant in MCRC No.8220 of 2025 submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submit that the actual facts of the case are that Smt. Barkha Vasnik was the legally wedded wife of the applicant Shishupal, and they were going through matrimonial disputes and litigation between them as husband and wife. After the unfortunate accident, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Rajhara by the brother of the deceased. Postmortem examination was also conducted by the doctor, however, the doctor did not provide any specific opinion regarding the cause of death or the injuries as alleged. It was further opined that there were no anti-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased which could indicate that the death was homicidal in nature. He also submits that after a lapse of about four months from the date of the accident, the brother of the deceased, with an ulterior motive, fabricated a false story of murder, whereas there is no document or evidence available on record to establish that it is a 4 case of homicide. The crime detail form and marg intimation report also clearly mention that the cause of death was due to an accident. Furthermore, a false memorandum has been prepared to falsely implicate the applicant with the mala fide intention of preventing him from obtaining custody of his minor child from the in-laws’ family, despite being the natural guardian. The applicant is in jail since 26.05.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant in MCRC No.8221 of 2025 submits that the applicant has not committed or participated in any act which may amount to any of the offences alleged against him. Furthermore, the evidence collected by the prosecution is not prima facie sufficient to hold the applicant guilty of the said offences. He further submits that due to previous enmity, the present FIR has been falsely lodged against the applicant with mala fide intention. Moreover, there is no motive attributed to the applicant to kill the deceased, and the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are not prima facie attracted against him. The present applicant has been made an accused merely on the basis of suspicion without any cogent evidence. The applicant is in jail since 26.05.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail 5 applications and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. They further submits that the applicant Shishupal, who was harassing his wife, the deceased Barkha Wasnik, in the backdrop of ongoing matrimonial disputes, conspired with co-accused Kayamuddin to cause her death, agreeing to pay Kayamuddin a sum of Rs.60,000 for his involvement. On the date of the incident, it is alleged that both accused intentionally struck the scooty of the deceased near Hanuman Mandir turn, using a Bolero vehicle, causing Barkha Wasnik and another woman to fall. Subsequently, Shishupal is alleged to have exited the vehicle and assaulted the injured deceased with an iron rod, inflicting multiple blows to her head and back, resulting in her death. It is further alleged that co- accused Kayamuddin actively participated in the conspiracy by driving the Bolero vehicle during the attack, thereby facilitating the attempt to kill Barkha Wasnik and the other woman. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. From perusal of the material available in the case dairy, it prima facie appears that the applicant Shishupal, who was harassing his wife, the deceased Barkha Wasnik, in the backdrop of ongoing matrimonial disputes, conspired with co-accused Kayamuddin to cause her death, agreeing to pay Kayamuddin a 6 sum of Rs.60,000/- for his involvement, on the date of the incident, they intentionally struck the scooty of the deceased near Hanuman Mandir turn, using a Bolero vehicle, causing Barkha Wasnik and another woman to fall and subsequently, Shishupal is alleged to have exited the vehicle and assaulted the injured deceased with an iron rod, inflicting multiple blows to her head and back 3 - 4 times, causing her death on the spot, resulting in her death on the spot and after committing the said act, they are presenting it as an accidental case, further as per post mortem report deceased sustained multiple injuries on her person, the injury No.10 goes to show that there was fracture on right side of 2nd to 8th rib. 9. Considering the fact that the crime is extremely brutal, premeditated, and heinous in nature, accused, Shishupal not only attempted to kill his wife by ramming the vehicle into her but also got down from the vehicle and brutally attacked her with an iron rod, causing her death, the co-accused Kayamuddin was actively involved in the conspiracy and was driving the Bolero vehicle, thereby attempting to kill the deceased and another woman. There are direct evidence on record indicating the active involvement of both accused persons, further considering the injuries sustained by the deceased, nature and seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on bail. 7 10. Accordingly, the bail applications of applicants - Shishpal Vashnik and Kayamuddin Hasan involved in Crime No. 80/2025 registered at Police Station Rajhara, District : Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 281, 125(A), 106(1) of BNS with respect to applicant, Shishpal Vashnik and for the offence punishable under Sections 103, 109, 61(2), 238(B), 3(5) of BNS with respect to applicant, Kayamuddin Hasan, is rejected. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and concluded the trial expeditiously. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil