1 2026:CGHC:5283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 138 of 2026 Durgesh Yadav S/o Chhotu Yadav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar, Dhobi Gali, Near Post OfÏce Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Pali, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. For Complainant/objector : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 114/2025 registered at Police Station- Pali, District- Korba, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a), 190, 191(2), and 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on the night of 28.03.2025, the informant Anil Jaiswal lodged a report alleging that his cousin, Anup RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 @ Rohit Jaiswal, who was engaged in the business of coal lifting, was brutally assaulted and murdered by a group of accused persons at Saraipali Coal Mines. It is alleged that the accused persons, including Roshan Singh Thakur and others, armed with pistols, swords, knives and clubs, formed an unlawful assembly and, following a dispute regarding working rights in the coal mines, attacked the deceased, repeatedly assaulting him, which resulted in his death. It is further alleged that some of the accused had threatened the deceased that his presence at the coal mines would deprive them of their livelihood. The incident was witnessed by several persons, including Harsh Jaiswal and Suraj Kashyap, and during the incident Dhani Jaiswal sustained injuries while attempting to intervene. Upon registration of the report, a case was registered against 16 accused persons, who were subsequently arrested, and various weapons and mobile phones were seized. After completion of investigation, recording of statements of witnesses and conducting post-mortem examination, the police filed the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pali, District Korba (C.G.), and the case is presently pending before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) as Sessions Trial No. 71/2025. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question, as he has neither committed nor participated in the alleged incident in any manner. It is submitted that the name of the applicant does 3 not find place in the FIR lodged on 28.03.2025, nor has the injured witness Anil Jaiswal named the present applicant either in the written complaint or in his statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The implication of the applicant is solely based on the memorandum statement of co- accused Rahul Nirmalkar, who himself is an alleged assailant, and such disclosure, being weak evidence, cannot form the sole basis for denying bail. He further submits that even during investigation, the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence seized on 05.06.2025 does not show the presence of the applicant, and he is also absent from all electronic evidence, photographs and videographs collected by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the bail applications of co-accused Vikas Kumar Kaushik and Durgesh Singh Thakur @ Lala Thakur were rejected by this Hon’ble Court on the specific ground that their names were categorically mentioned by the injured witness, which clearly distinguishes the case of the present applicant from those co-accused. He also points out that similarly placed co-accused Surendra Singh Chouhan has already been granted relief by this Hon’ble Court by order dated 06.11.2025, whereby the criminal proceedings against him were quashed. Even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, no overt act, motive or intention is attributed to the present applicant, and no role in the commission of the alleged offence is made out against him. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 29.03.2025, the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and the trial is likely to take some time for its 4 conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, as well as learned counsel for the complainant/objector, vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the offence in question is grave and heinous in nature, involving a brutal assault and murder committed by a group of accused persons forming an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons. It is submitted that the injured witness, though not acquainted with all the accused by name, has categorically stated that he is capable of identifying the persons present at the place of occurrence if produced before him. It is further submitted that Harsh Jaiswal, an eye-witness to the incident, has also stated that he can identify the persons involved in the crime, though he could not name all of them as the accused persons belong to different districts. Thus, the absence of the applicant’s name in the initial report does not exonerate him and his complicity cannot be ruled out at this stage. It is further submitted that bail applications of similarly placed co-accused have already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court considering the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence collected during investigation. In view of the gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail 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 allegations, and the prosecution case discloses a grave and heinous offence of murder committed by a group of 5 accused persons forming an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons. The material collected during investigation, including the statements of the injured and eye-witnesses, prima facie indicate the presence and participation of the applicant in the incident, and the injured witness has stated that he is capable of identifying the persons involved if produced before him. The mere fact that the applicant’s name was not mentioned initially does not dilute the prosecution case at this stage, particularly when the complicity of the applicant cannot be ruled out and the investigation has resulted in filing of charge-sheet. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the manner of commission, the role attributed to the applicant and the fact that bail applications of similarly placed co- accused have already been rejected, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Durgesh Yadav, involved in Crime No. 114/2025 registered at Police Station- Pali, District- Korba, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a), 190, 191(2), and 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce 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 Rahul Dewangan